Motion made, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be considered on Monday 7 March.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Michael Fallon: I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the cessation of hostilities at the weekend. That appears largely to be holding for now, but it will succeed only if there is a major change of behaviour by the Syrian regime and by its principal backer, Russia. Russia must honour the agreement by ending attacks on Syrian civilians and moderate opposition groups and using its influence to ensure that the Syrian regime does the same. As for the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, there has been some progress in the past few weeks in reaching besieged areas. Some 60,000 people have recently been reached with aid through the United Nations food convoys.

Byron Davies: Continuing on the theme of the Russian bombing, what are my right hon. Friend and the Government doing to highlight Russia’s indiscriminate behaviour, and what contact has he had with the Russian authorities to end this outrage?

Michael Fallon: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have been very clear and public that Russian actions have been undermining the prospects for ending the conflict in Syria. We welcome the Russian contribution to the most recent agreement that came into effect on Saturday. Russia can and should play a positive role in the fight against Daesh and in ending the conflict in Syria. I have to tell the House, however, that over 70% of Russian airstrikes have not been against Daesh at all but against civilians and moderate opposition groups in Syria—an appalling contribution to a conflict that must be ended.

Michael Fallon: There have not been discussions about extending airstrikes to Libya because at the moment there is no Government in Libya. We have been working to assist the formation of a new Government in Libya, and it is then for that Government to make clear what assistance they require. We are party to the Libyan international assistance mission, and we will see exactly what kind of support the new Government want—whether it is assistance with advice or training, or any other kind of support.[Official Report, 2 March 2016, Vol. 606, c. 6MC.]

Ruth Smeeth: Last week in Iraq, members of the Defence Committee were informed of the full horror of Daesh, specifically in Ramadi. As it is forced out of territory, it leaves behind minefields of improvised explosive devices, including in people’s fridges and toilets, but there are no resources available to remove them. What conversations is the Defence Secretary having with partners to ensure that those resources are made available?

Michael Fallon: We have been making our contribution through the United Nations and we are ready to help do more. It is not easy for convoys to get through to some of the very hard-to-reach areas. Last week’s aid drop was not entirely successful; it was dropped from a great height into a high wind, and a number of the pallets did not reach their target. The best way of getting aid in is by land convoys, but that is not easy in some of the particularly hard-to-reach areas.

Brendan O'Hara: Does the Secretary of State believe that the use of the much-vaunted Brimstone missile against Daesh has, as both he and the Prime Minister assured us it would,
	“cut off the head of the snake”
	in Raqqa?

Michael Fallon: Brimstone is one of the precision munitions available to our armed forces, alongside Paveway bombs and the Hellfire missile. The United Kingdom forces have flown more than 2,100 combat missions against Daesh and have carried out more than 600 strikes, including with Brimstone missiles. One of the points for review at the recent ministerial meeting was what more we can do to target the infrastructure that supports Daesh—its command and control, logistics and supply routes—as well as our efforts in support of Iraqi forces.

Brendan O'Hara: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but will he comment on recent reports in The New York Times that say that, although Daesh numbers have fallen in both Iraq and Syria, those in Libya have doubled in the same period? Is it not the case that, rather than diminishing Daesh, the current bombing campaign is simply displacing it?

James Gray: As the Secretary of State has said, coalition efforts have a significant effect on stopping and degrading Daesh not only in Iraq, but, to a lesser degree, in Syria. Does he agree, however, that a conventional, full-frontal assault on Mosul and Raqqa might well have the opposite effect to that we are seeking, and that trying to do something about Daesh’s poisonous ideology and funding is possibly more important than purely conventional attacks?

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for the official support that has been given to the campaign against Daesh. The 70,000 figure was not the Government’s figure; it was a figure produced independently by the Joint Intelligence Committee. We have no reason to believe that it is wrong. Indeed, the civil war in Syria has been raging for six years, so considerable forces, of which the 70,000 are a formidable part, have been engaged against the Syrian regime.

Philip Dunne: In the strategic defence and security review published last November, the Ministry of Defence agreed a new strategic objective of contributing to the nation’s prosperity. We do that in many ways, not least through our procurement spend of some £20 billion a year with UK industry, around half of which is in the manufacturing sector. The British defence and security industry is the largest in Europe, and it plays a vital role in delivering battle-winning capabilities for our armed forces. As a Department, we are driving greater innovation into defence procurement, maximising opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses, investing in skills and contributing to a more prosperous economy.

David Hanson: I am genuinely interested in the Minister’s approach. I would like him to explain to the House why, for example, 60% of the steel for the new Royal Navy offshore patrol boats is being procured from Sweden, when in my part of the world, Wales, we have a real crisis on our hands with the steel industry.

Philip Dunne: As my hon. Friend knows, the UK defence and security industry is the largest in Europe. As the default position, we continue to place contracts on the basis of open competition. EU procurement directives apply to our procurement, which means that EU contractors are eligible to compete for our contracts in the same way as UK and other international companies, other than when we declare an article 346 exemption for warlike stores, which accounts for about 45% of our procurement.[Official Report, 2 March 2016, Vol. 606, c. 5MC.]

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend might have preferred to put that question to the Secretary of State, who has just visited the Falkland Islands. He is the first United Kingdom Defence Secretary to do so for over a decade. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that, as part of the SDSR conclusions, the Ministry of Defence has committed to investing £180 million in the Falkland Islands, including the improvements he seeks to the accommodation.

Kate Hollern: Perhaps the Minister should listen to the questions, stop throwing out allegations of grandstanding and take the issue of the steel industry in this country seriously. The chronic under-investment in steel in this country by this Government is nothing less than a national disgrace. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, 60% of the steel required for the Royal Navy’s offshore patrol vessels has been sourced from Sweden, to name but one example. Does the Minister not agree that the MOD should consider wider employment, industrial and economic factors in its procurement policy? Its policy is obviously not working given that, as he has said, such a low level, in truth, comes from British companies.

Philip Dunne: UK suppliers make a significant contribution to the supply of steel for our defence programmes, including some 94% of the steel in the aircraft carriers—77,000 tonnes—being sourced from UK mills. The Government and I recognise that there is an issue that is affecting steel production in this country. That is why we established the steel procurement working group, on which the Ministry of Defence is represented. I instructed the Department and wrote to our major defence prime contractors last December to ensure that the guidance on steel procurement was implemented across defence. That will enable proactive engagement with the UK steel market on procurement pipelines through the supply chain and ensure that cost calculations can be taken into account over the whole life, and not just at the initial price.

Jess Phillips: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the planned 30% reduction in his Department’s civilian workforce on front-line service personnel.

Jim Cunningham: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the planned 30% reduction in his Department’s civilian workforce on front-line service personnel.

Mark Lancaster: No, I do not, because the savings of approximately £300 million that we will be able to make will ultimately be reinvested in front-line capability.

Mark Lancaster: Under the “whole force” approach, we have tried to find the balance both between regular and reserve service personnel, and between MOD civilians and contractors. This is a mix that successive Governments have followed. We try to use the right people in the right place at the right time.

Emily Thornberry: Civilians at Defence Equipment and Support fulfil one of the MOD’s most important responsibilities—making sure that our troops have the right kit—yet they, along with the rest of the MOD’s civilians staff, face 30% cuts. DE&S requires highly specialist expertise, for example to make sure that our aircraft are safe, so will the Minister explain how he can impose 30% cuts without losing such vital skills?

Emily Thornberry: The Minister is telling us that although there will be 30% cuts across the civilian staff, some areas will face cuts to civilian staff higher than 30% and other areas will face 20% cuts. It is in the strategic defence review that there will be 30% cuts to civilian staff, but he tells me that they will not be at DE&S, so where will they be instead? In the last two years alone, DE&S has lost 5,000 staff. At the same time, the cost of contractors has spiralled. We are in the ludicrous position where the Public Accounts Committee says that we are spending £250 million on contractors who are advising us on how to reduce our reliance on contractors. Surely the Minister ought to learn from experience and make these cuts in a strategic way, as opposed to introducing arbitrary cuts.

Drew Hendry: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of EU membership on the UK’s national security.

Michael Fallon: NATO is the cornerstone of the United Kingdom’s defence. The European Union plays an important complementary role in supporting NATO’s response to international crises, by applying economic, humanitarian and diplomatic levers that NATO does not have. The Government therefore believe that the United Kingdom’s continued membership of a reformed European Union will make us safer and stronger.

Michael Fallon: Our recent strategic defence and security review identified cyber as one of the key threats facing this country. My Department has now taken overall responsibility for cyber security, and we are spending more than £2 billion to ensure that we keep the institutions of government properly protected and do our best to spread good practice in our industry.

Michael Fallon: As I have said, NATO is the cornerstone of our defence and the EU plays a complementary role. I have not yet come across any NATO Defence Minister who thinks that we should leave the European Union or that we would be safer and stronger outside it. Taken together, membership of those two organisations—the alliance and the union—keeps us stronger and safer in an uncertain world.

Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that by advancing the rather quaint idea that somehow our membership of the EU enhances our national security, he is merely playing into the hands of people such as Mr Juncker and Chancellor Merkel who, if Britain votes to remain in the EU, would advance towards a European army and permanent structured co-operation, the result of which would be to undermine NATO—the very organisation that the Secretary of State says is the cornerstone of our national defence?

Michael Fallon: Yes. The arrangements for voting in the referendum, as I understand it, are exactly the same as in a general election. Following my hon. Friend’s reminder, we will of course make every effort to ensure as high a turnout by the armed forces as possible.

Mark Lancaster: When I announced to the House on 16 December that veterans diagnosed on or after that date with diffuse mesothelioma as a result of their service would have the option of receiving a lump sum of £140,000, I also committed to looking at whether it could be extended to veterans diagnosed before that date. We have kept our word and I am delighted to confirm that the option of a lump sum payment will be extended to veterans in receipt of a war pension for mesothelioma diagnosed before 16 December 2015.

Mark Lancaster: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind comments. I have instructed the Veterans Agency to contact all those we know of with immediate effect. I hope the payments will be made on or shortly after 11 April.[Official Report, 2 March 2016, Vol. 606, c. 6MC.]

David Anderson: I am delighted to welcome today’s announcement to the House, but I would just like to add a little word of caution. We must make sure that when people are given the option—specifically, widows who may survive by many years servicemen who die from this deadly disease—there are no unintended consequences? We must make sure that if widows choose the option of a lump sum, it will not have the impact of their losing benefits over the years.

Mark Lancaster: I do not entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says. My understanding is that we have been making positive progress, and that action has been taken through monitoring and removal on the beach since 2011. I am absolutely clear what the MOD’s responsibilities are in this matter. I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman later this week. I hope we can have a constructive approach to moving this issue forward.

Julian Brazier: The new light general purpose frigate will be crucial to the longer-term future of the UK’s warship-building industry and will form a central part of the national shipbuilding strategy, which is due to be published later this year. No decision is expected to be made on the build location until the programme has further matured.

Stewart McDonald: Given the expectations raised by the Government following the strategic defence and security review, that answer is most unwelcome. Does the Minister not agree with me—I may be biased as a Glasgow MP—that, given that the finest ships anywhere in the world were built on the Clyde, it would be the perfect location for this building to take place?

Julian Brazier: To date, £3.5 billion has been spent on the aircraft carrier programme in Scotland. In 2014, we placed a £348 million contract for three offshore patrol vessels, helping to sustain 800 Scottish jobs, and helping, too, to secure the skills for the eight Type 26 global combat ships planned to be constructed on the Clyde. The general purpose frigates may also be built on the Clyde, but it is too early to commit to a decision.

Mr Speaker: Ah, get in there—I call Michael Fabricant.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The defence in the case that he mentioned cost the British taxpayer £31 million, and the law firm involved, Leigh Day, has been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. We are looking at ways in which we can recoup costs, in that case and in others. Those who have their own associations with Leigh Day will need to make their own judgments.

Kirsten Oswald: I was disappointed to read in the media the Secretary of State’s recent statement that he had personally authorised the use of United Kingdom bases for United States airstrikes in Libya. The matter was not brought to the Chamber in advance. Furthermore, yesterday’s papers reported that the Government had now deployed British advisers to Libya. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to stopping this mission creep, and to ensuring that no further such action is taken without the leave of the House? Will he also explain his assessment of whether the action to date was lawful according to UK standards relating to the use of force, international humanitarian law, and human rights law?

Mr Speaker: With exemplary brevity—Tom Brake.

Graham Allen: rose—

Michael Fallon: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Resume your seat, Secretary of State. I appreciate the earnestness and commitment of the hon. Lady, but questions must be about Government policy, for which Ministers are responsible—

Andrew Bridgen: Labour haven’t got any.

Mr Speaker: Order. Be quiet, Mr Bridgen! Ministers are responsible for Government policy, not that of the Opposition. On the Government’s policy, the Secretary of State will comment; on that of the Opposition, he will not.

Rachael Maskell: Alcohol misuse and dependency continue to create serious health risks, including those that can lead to loss of life, in the armed forces, where its use is three times higher than in the civilian population. It is now a year since the Defence Select Committee highlighted the fact that the Government’s alcohol strategy for the armed forces had made no noticeable difference. What steps is the Secretary of State now taking to set targets to manage alcohol consumption patterns and to address this serious issue?

Nigel Adams: Can the Minister confirm that the last Government looked at all the alternatives to our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, and that none offered the protection that we need? Does he agree with the two former Labour Defence Secretaries who have said that it is
	“self-evident that a British nuclear deterrent will be essential to our security for decades to come”?

Michael Fallon: Russia’s failure to halt airstrikes on the civilian population seemed designed to push that population towards the Turkish border and to make it Europe’s problem. That is why it is enormously important now that the ceasefire holds and that Russia returns to a more constructive path of working with us to get this terrible civil war ended.

Penny Mordaunt: I pay tribute to all my hon. Friend’s constituents who work to protect our country against cyber-attacks, which are indeed growing. We have increased spending in this area to £2.5 billion, and as 80% of cyber-attacks are preventable by some extremely simple, straightforward good practice, a lot of that investment will be going to protect British businesses and private individuals in that respect.

Alan Brown: The strategic defence and security review supposedly included £12 billion of additional expenditure on equipment, but with £16 billion extra allocated for nuclear submarines, massive cuts have been made elsewhere to support that. A written answer referred me to the defence equipment plan, but it has insufficient detail on the changes, so will the Minister commit to providing further clarity on the changes within the 2015 SDSR?

Philip Dunne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking such an interest in the equipment plan, which is a bit of a specialist subject. We will be publishing the next annual iteration of the equipment plan, just as we have done for each of the past three years, and it will demonstrate that there will be an additional £12 billion committed to spending on military equipment over the next 10 years. That will take it up to £178 billion, but he will have to be a bit more patient before he sees how that is allocated.

David Mowat: In December 2014, the Secretary of State told this House that the legal aid wrongly claimed by Leigh Day and co—because of inadequate disclosure—should be reimbursed. Is it still his view that it will be reimbursed in full? Given the timescales that have passed so far, when does he think the money will be received?

Penny Mordaunt: We are awaiting the Legal Aid Agency’s response to our request to revoke the legal aid award on the grounds that it would not have been made in the first place had the agency been made aware of all relevant documentation in that case. We are still waiting on that judgment, but we believe it is imminent.

Ian Austin: Not content with comparing himself to our country’s wartime leader—the greatest ever Briton and saviour of the free world—this weekend the Mayor of London compared his opposition to the EU to James Bond taking on a sinister supranational organisation. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State whether, in all his dealings with the intelligence and security services, and with the special forces, such a similarity has ever occurred to him?

Jack Lopresti: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Ministry of Defence has had to spend £100 million on legal claims? Will this Government make sure that we spend money on our troops, and on giving them the best support and equipment, rather than on filling the wallets of unscrupulous lawyers?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend raises a good point: the money we are having to spend on dealing with malicious allegations against our armed forces would be better spent on equipment and training for them. I can assure him that commercial legal spending in the Department is down a third on last year’s. I think he was making reference to the amount spent on Iraqi historic allegations, and we are doing what we can to ensure that this works more effectively and efficiently. I have had some good conversations with the Attorney General’s office about this and he will be visiting the team shortly.

David Rutley: Given the importance of our nuclear deterrent to our national security, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what representations he has had from the Labour party in support of this Government’s clear policy in this important area?

Michael Fallon: I have so far received some rather conflicting representations on the future of our nuclear deterrent. Like many Members across this House, there are mainstream Members of the Labour party who support—as every previous Government have done— the renewal of the nuclear deterrent that has helped to keep this country safe. There are some other Labour Members who seem to think that we can turn our nuclear submarines into water taxis.

Michael Fallon: As I said earlier, it was a pleasure to be the first Defence Secretary to visit the islands for more than a decade and to meet many of the 1,200 service personnel who are based there and to confirm our investment programme of £180 million over the next 10 years. Unlike the situation with the Labour party, nobody can be in any doubt about our commitment to the right of the islanders to determine their own future, and not to have it bargained away by a possible Labour Government reaching some accommodation with Argentina.

Mark Pritchard: Is it not the case that, if the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, France and Germany are more likely to dominate Europe’s defence structures, which means that, in the medium term, over the horizon, we are more likely to see European defence structures compete with, rather than complement, NATO?

Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend has made his views in this great debate very clear. As I said to the House earlier, NATO is the cornerstone of our security and the European Union complements that, with a number of other levers and weapons at its disposal—humanitarian, diplomatic and economic. There is no doubt in my mind that the fracturing of either the alliance or the Union would not aid the collective security of the west.

Child Refugees: Calais

Yvette Cooper: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on child refugees in Calais.

James Brokenshire: Last Thursday, a judge in France ruled that the authorities in Calais could proceed with clearing the tents and makeshift accommodation from the southern section of the migrant camp located there. Over recent weeks the authorities, working with non-governmental organisations, have ensured that the migrants affected by the clearances, which have begun today, were aware of the alternative accommodation that the French state had made available. For women and children, that means the specialist accommodation for about 400 people in and around the Jules Ferry centre, or the protected accommodation elsewhere in the region. For others, this means the recently erected heated containers that can house 1,500 people.
	The French Government have also, with the support of UK funding, established more than 100 welcome centres elsewhere in France where migrants in Calais can find a bed, meals and information about their options. To be clear, no individual needs to remain in the camps in Calais and Dunkirk. The decision to clear part of the camp in Calais is of course a matter for the French Government. The joint declaration signed in August last year committed the UK and France to a package of work to improve physical security at the ports, to co-ordinate the law enforcement response, to tackle the criminal gangs involved in people smuggling and to reduce the number of migrants in Calais.
	Both Governments retain a strong focus on protecting those vulnerable to trafficking and exploitation, and have put in place a programme to identify and help potential victims in the camps around Calais. The UK is playing a leading role in tackling people smuggling, increasing joint intelligence work with the French to target the callous gangs that exploit human beings for their own gain.
	The UK shares the French Government’s objective of increasing the number of individuals who take up the offer of safe and fully equipped accommodation away from Calais so that they can engage with the French immigration system, including by lodging an asylum claim. It is important to stress that anyone who does not want to live in the makeshift camps in Calais has the option of engaging with the French authorities, who will provide accommodation and support. That is particularly important for unaccompanied children. When an asylum claim is lodged by a child with close family connections in the UK, both Governments are committed to ensuring that such a case is prioritised, but it is vital that the child engages with the French authorities as quickly as possible. That is the best way to ensure that these vulnerable children receive the protection and support they need and the quickest way to reunite them with any close family members in the UK.
	The UK is committed to safeguarding the welfare of unaccompanied children and we take our responsibilities seriously. No one should live in the conditions we have seen in the camps around Calais. The French Government have made huge efforts to provide suitable, alternative accommodation for all those who need it, and have made it clear that migrants in Calais in need of protection should claim asylum in France.

Yvette Cooper: This morning the French authorities started to move people out of the southern part of the Calais refugee camp, in theory into container shelters and reception centres elsewhere. The charities say that there is not enough alternative accommodation and around 2,300 people have nowhere to go. That includes many from Syria and Afghanistan, and over 400 children and teenagers with no one to look after them, such as the 12-year-old boy I met from Afghanistan with a huge scar across his face, which had happened when his home was attacked.
	Unaccompanied children are not allowed into the new container shelters and the Jules Ferry centre for women and children is full. The tents and volunteer support network are about to be bulldozed and there is no safeguarding plan in place at all. There is a massive reality gap between what the Minister said and what is happening on the ground. Save the Children warns that things are extremely chaotic and this is making
	“an appalling situation for children even worse.”
	This is dangerous. The Minister well knows that there is a serious risk that those children will now just disappear into the hands of traffickers, criminal gangs or prostitution—another 400 children on top of the 10,000 who Europol says have already disappeared in Europe.
	Some of those children have their closest family here in the UK. Citizens UK estimates that there are up to 150 such children. That is why they are there, rather than heading to Germany or Sweden, and the Government say they agree that child refugees should be reunited with their family. They also agree that if their closest family is in the UK, they should be able to apply here for asylum, and have promised funding to help that happen. A court case confirms that relatives in Britain should be able to look after children while they apply, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has offered to process cases and speed things up, but that is not happening for the kids in Calais. Even if they manage to apply, their cases are taking nine months. They do not have nine months—their remaining tents are being bulldozed now.
	So will the Minister make urgent representations to the French Government to provide immediate safeguarding support for children and young people, and not to remove their accommodation until there is somewhere safer for them to go? Will he accept the offer from the UNHCR to help process applications and set up a fast system to reunite children with family who are here? Finally, will he agree to Lord Dubs’ amendment to help child refugees?
	The Minister has talked a good game on stopping trafficking and modern slavery, and he is right to be appalled at the criminal gangs, but this is where it gets real. The Minister has the power now to stop the trafficking of hundreds of children on our doorstop. Will he do it?

James Brokenshire: We do take our responsibilities seriously, as I indicated in the statement that I made to the House. On the level of alternative accommodation, I mentioned the welcome centres that are available around other parts of France, which now number more than 100. Around 2,500 people have left those camps to go to the reception centres. I stress the importance of getting asylum claims into the system in France.
	The right hon. Lady highlights, rightly, the interests of children in and around the camps. We are obviously aware of the containerised accommodation adjacent to the Calais camp. Priority, we understand, is being given to women, children and other vulnerable migrants. This is in addition to the 400 places in heated tents already available for women and children.
	In response to the right hon. Lady’s point about close family members, I can tell her that we remain committed to our obligations under Dublin III. The UK and France are running a joint communication centre at the camp, which informs individuals of their rights to claim asylum in France and gives them information on family reunification.
	Equally, to assist in the handling of such cases, the UK and France have established a senior-level standing committee and agreed single points of contact with respective Dublin units, and the UK is about to second an asylum expert to the French Administration to facilitate the improvement of all stages of the process of identifying, protecting and transferring any relevant cases to the UK.
	The right hon. Lady referred to a period of nine months, but it should take nowhere near that amount of time. We remain committed to seeing an efficient and effective process for what we judge to be a small number of cases that might have that direct connection to the UK. She will also be aware of the broader family reunification provisions, over and above Dublin, that would allow children to be reunited with their parents, with direct applications not only from France, but from elsewhere in Europe and, indeed, from the region, where there is that direct link. The Government have also committed an additional £10 million through the Department for International Development to support better reunification and to assist children in transit in Europe, but we are very cautious not to make an already difficult situation even worse.
	Therefore, the emphasis is on giving practical support to the French Government, who are leading in this regard, and providing expert support. Equally, there is the support that we are giving in Greece, Italy and countries in the region so that such children are more easily identified and helped at the earliest opportunity.

Keir Starmer: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for raising this issue. The Opposition have repeatedly raised the plight of the 26,000 or so unaccompanied children in Europe, who are in desperate need of protection. I listened to what the Minister said this afternoon, and I have listened to what he has said before, but there is, as my right hon. Friend has said, a reality gap here.
	I have been to see the camps in Calais and Dunkirk for myself. The squalor is hard to describe, and it is worse in Dunkirk than it is in Calais. There are 300 or so unaccompanied children in Calais, and they are not there by choice. In Dunkirk the conditions are such that the volunteers—there are only eight of them—are so busy trying to keep people safe and provide them with somewhere to sleep that they cannot even count the number of unaccompanied children. There is no process on the ground for these children, there is no meaningful advice for them and the reunification rules are not working. That is the reality on the ground. We have to start from that position. That was all borne out by the judgment of the upper tribunal in January.
	The situation is now urgent because of the action that has been taken today. I urge the Minister to look at the issue again and consider what practical support can be given in the next 24 hours to these desperate children, who until now have not had the support they need.

James Brokenshire: The joint declaration signed between the UK and French Governments last August actually provides for the direct financial support that we are giving to the French Government to provide the centres outside the immediate area of Calais. Indeed, as I have already highlighted, there is the Jules Ferry centre, and there is the work we are doing on a regular basis to identify and highlight the appropriate support that is there. I stress again: there is no need for people to be in those conditions. There are services—[Interruption.] There are facilities and services away from the camps that are available to support people. We take our responsibilities seriously, which is why—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) keeps interjecting from the Opposition Front Bench. We are working closely with the French Government to see that there are experts in place, and I have already indicted that an additional person is going out next week to see that there are procedures in place so that there will be efficient and effective reunification for what I judge to be a small number of cases. However, support and alternative accommodation are available in France, and I would urge people to take up those choices.

John Redwood: I am glad the Government put a high priority on reuniting children with their parents, or orphans with close relatives—that is the best answer. However, is it not the case that the European Council’s conclusions at its last meeting were very clear: the best way to help is to prevent these things from happening in future, by ensuring that the EU enforces its border controls when people first enter the
	EU and provides safeguarding and support for those who need it when they first enter the EU, rather than putting them through the ordeal of a long journey across the whole of its territory?

James Brokenshire: It is also about ensuring that there is support in and around the region to prevent people from going out in boats, putting children’s lives at risk. That is why the work done at the London conference, in providing additional education to ensure there is a sense of positive hope, was absolutely the right thing to do. That was backed up by our £2.3 billion commitment to aid and assistance in and around the region. My right hon. Friend is right about ensuring that the hotspots initiative is in place to see that help and support are given at the first opportunity, and that is what the Government are committed to doing.

Stuart McDonald: Does the Minister not understand that France’s Dublin procedures for unaccompanied children are just not fit for purpose and that it takes up to a year even for take charge requests to be issued? In that light, should we not be welcoming, rather than challenging, the recent tribunal decision in ZAT to shortcut the admission of three children from the horrendous Calais camps so that they can join their families here? As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) suggested, should we not be looking to welcome the other 100 or so Calais children identified by Citizens UK as having family in the UK, so that they, too, can be reunited with their loved ones? Just how much public money has been spent on litigation in this case in an attempt to prevent refugee children in Calais from reaching their families here? Would not that money be far better spent on ensuring that Dublin III processes are fit for purpose and on safeguarding those children?

Helen Whately: As other hon. Members have said, the conditions in the camps are awful, and action did need to be taken by the French Government—as long as it is not heavy-handed. However, when I spoke to migrants there, they were very wary of the French Government and French officials. I welcome the fact that the Government are working so collaboratively with the French, but will my right hon. Friend advise us what outreach the Government are doing to encourage people to apply for asylum through the French system, so that they can come here legally if they have a right to do so?

Bob Stewart: I have a great deal of time for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Will my right hon. Friend outline the UNHCR’s role in Calais?

Alistair Carmichael: As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, if these were British children, the test that would have to be applied to the Government’s actions would be that of the best interests of the child. The Minister is describing colluding with the French Government in a process that will push these children into the hands of people traffickers. Is he really saying that we apply such a different standard to the children of refugeescompared with our own?

James Brokenshire: I utterly reject the right hon. Gentleman’s assertion. The joint working that our enforcement agencies are engaged in in confronting the people traffickers, going after the gangs and seeing that there is not such exploitation is part of the joint agreement that was signed last August. We are supporting the French Government to identify the vulnerable and see that they are given support, and we will continue to do so.

James Brokenshire: I can certainly say that if there are children who qualify under the Dublin regulation—in other words, if they have close family here—we will stand by our obligations. We will ensure that they are processed efficiently and effectively, which is precisely why we are taking the action we are with the French Government.
	My hon. Friend highlights the issue of the UNHCR’s role. There is a clear process, and we are working to ensure that it operates. As I have said, we believe that it can be made to operate efficiently and effectively, and we will work with the French Government to achieve that.

Alison McGovern: I must be mishearing, because the Minister seems to be implying that it is the responsibility of children to declare themselves to the relevant authorities. That cannot be correct—it is our responsibility here to make sure that children are cared for. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, the UNHCR has offered to set up a fast process for us. The Minister has implied, but not yet said, that he has told it no, so will he be specific and say whether he has told it yes or no?

James Brokenshire: In respect of asylum processing and deciding whether to uphold claims, we in this country have done a great deal to ensure that claims are properly assessed and that straightforward claims are dealt with within six months. The Government have done a great deal of hard work to introduce that effectiveness into the system, and that has been recognised in the recent independent inspector’s report.

Andrew Slaughter: The press are reporting this afternoon that riot police are using tear gas and water cannon to support the destruction of the “jungle” camp. I do not know whether that is what the Minister meant by the French authorities engaging with young people and encouraging them to move on. Given that there is plenty of money to provide fencing, and bilateral co-operation with the French, why can he not simply get together with his French counterpart, identify the young people who have a legal right to come to the UK and get them over here immediately?

Peter Grant: Exactly a week ago, I asked the Prime Minister for an assurance that the United Kingdom Government’s response to the refugee crisis would be driven entirely by humanitarian need and not influenced in any way by considerations of the impact that it might have on the referendum that is likely to happen at the end of June. The Prime Minister was either unable or unwilling to give such a general assurance last week. Will the Immigration Minister please give that assurance, at least in relation to these most desperate and vulnerable young people?

James Brokenshire: I think that the hon. Gentleman can see from the Government’s actions that we take our responsibilities very seriously. With the funding that we have committed not just in and around Syria but in Europe, and with the additional £10 million fund that the Department for International Development is operating to ensure that children in transit who are in need of help, counselling or other support can receive it, that is precisely what we will do.

Robin Walker: I recently met constituents from St Stephen’s church in Worcester who have been to the camp in Dunkirk. They describe the situation for children as appalling. There is very poor sanitation, and with men-only kitchens, there is a danger that children and the women looking after them are missing out on food. I completely agree with the Minister that everyone in the camps should claim asylum in France, but where that does not happen over a long period, what more can we do to reach out and get that information to the most vulnerable? How can we make sure that the humanitarian assistance that reaches the camps reaches the most vulnerable in the camps?

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Bernard Jenkin: (Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the instructions issued by the Cabinet Secretary to permanent secretaries in respect of EU referendum guidance for the civil service and special advisers.

Matthew Hancock: The referendum on 23 June on the European Union represents the biggest constitutional decision for the nation in a generation. The Government’s position is clear: Britain will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed European Union. Today’s Government document setting out the process of leaving underlines that case, showing that a vote to leave could lead to up to a decade or more of damaging uncertainty, with real consequences putting jobs and investment at risk. I concur with that assessment.
	Because of the significance of the referendum, as the House knows the Prime Minister took the decision to allow collective responsibility to be suspended on the referendum question. This approach was discussed and agreed by the Cabinet on 20 February. The process is clear: Ministers may depart from the Government position in a personal capacity on the specific question of the referendum. On all other matters, including on other EU business, the Government will operate as normal, and in all things the civil servants support the Government position.
	Guidance on how this will work in practice was set out and published by the Cabinet Secretary last week. The guidance is clear. Other than on the specific question of the referendum, all Ministers can commission and see all documents, as normal. On the question of the referendum—and on this question alone—Ministers who disagree with the Government position naturally cannot commission policy work on the in/out question or see documents setting out details of the case to remain. All Ministers can ask for factual briefing, and for facts to be checked in any matter. All Ministers can see documents on EU issues not related to the referendum question, as normal.
	The guidance is clear and has been published. The process was agreed at Cabinet as the best way to manage the unusual situation of Ministers who disagree with the Government remaining in post. I hope that this clarity will allow Members on both sides of the House to focus on the main debate about whether Britain will be better served by leaving or remaining in a reformed European Union and then let the people decide.

Bernard Jenkin: Clarity on this issue is one thing that we do not have. Nobody objects to the Government making their case in the referendum, but most people expect the civil service to be impartial in carrying out its support for Ministers. It is established in law that Ministers are accountable for their Departments. Voters expect Government facts and figures to be impartial and accurate, whether they are used by Ministers who support remain or leave.
	Why does the Cabinet Secretary’s letter go far beyond the limits that were placed on dissenting Ministers in the 1975 referendum? Sir Peter Thornton, the permanent secretary of the then Secretary of State for Trade, Peter Shore, was quoted as saying:
	“It was jolly difficult putting forward anti-Common Market briefs to Mr. Shore, but I hope we did what he asked”.
	What a different atmosphere from today!
	Worse than that, a Q and A briefing that has been circulated following the letter states that Ministers may not see any papers that
	“have a bearing on the referendum question or are intended to be used in support of their position on the referendum”.
	That has been described by one Minister, the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as “unconstitutional”. How can such a wide ban be justified?
	How does my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office reconcile this with his comment on Radio 4 this morning that
	“the Government is functioning on all questions, other than specifically the in/out question, in an entirely normal way”?
	He also said:
	“There are no rules other than those set out last Monday in the letter from Jeremy Heywood.”
	What about the Q and A briefing?
	Does the Minister deny that permanent secretaries have been instructed to conceal information requested by Downing Street or the Cabinet Office from a dissenting Minister? The Cabinet Secretary’s letter states that “Departments may check facts”, but civil servants have also been told that they cannot
	“provide arguments or new facts”.
	How is that consistent with the duty of honesty in the civil service code, which requires a civil servant to
	“set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully”?
	Does the Minister agree that where any guidance or instruction conflicts with the code, the code must prevail?
	How does this situation best serve the democratic process if Ministers on opposing sides of the debate finish up disagreeing about information from the same Department which is meant to be impartial and accurate information provided by professional civil servants?

Matthew Hancock: Let me answer those points in turn. First, the Government are functioning perfectly well—in fact, I came to this House from a meeting with the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), on child care policy, and it was carried out in an entirely normal way. On Friday I visited a prison with the Justice Secretary, and those two points demonstrate that things are functioning as normal.
	The civil service code, and the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, makes it clear that it is the duty of civil servants to support the position of the Government of the day, and it is only because the Prime Minister is allowing Ministers to remain in government while disagreeing with a single policy—the in/out position—that this situation arise at all. The letter from the Cabinet Secretary makes it clear that factual briefing is allowed.
	Finally, the 1975 guidance made it clear that no briefing or draft speeches contrary to Government consideration were allowed to be drafted by civil servants. In fact, it went further because it said that if someone wanted to oppose the Government position, they had to inform No. 10 of any invitations to appear on the radio or TV. We have not put that provision in place. On all these things, the clarity in the guidance from the Cabinet Secretary that was published on Monday last week shows the rules, and those rules are consistent with the civil service code and, indeed, the law.

Tom Watson: I fear that the Minister is having a Jim Hacker moment. In 114 days, the country faces an important decision. The referendum will dictate how in future the UK handles exports and imports, the world of work, the new contours of the digital age, human rights, intelligence sharing, the fight against crime, and how we adapt to climate change, and here we are today discussing guidelines for civil servants and special advisers.
	Sadly, I am not in the strongest of positions to lecture the poor Minister on handling splits in his party, but in the way that Opposition Front Benchers are almost duty bound to do, I would like to give him some advice. The Justice Secretary has a history of letting his special advisers off the leash. Does the Minister really think that a memorandum from a mandarin will change that?
	When we have a Prime Minister who allows his spin doctors to brief that the Justice Secretary will be sacked after the referendum, or that his chum the Mayor of London has breached the old school code and that the Prime Minister is “hurt and upset”, I understand how the Minister would have been overcome with a wave of ennui at the prospect of answering an urgent question from the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee about the conduct of special advisers. However, answer for their conduct he must, and I wish to ask him how many special advisers have informed No. 10 of their intention to work on the no campaign. In the event of ministerial visits where a Minister and their special adviser campaign for a no vote after the event, will the cost of travel be carried by the Minister? How will that be monitored and made public? The guidelines state that special advisers are not allowed to campaign for a no vote in office hours. For the avoidance of doubt, please define “office hours”.
	When the inevitable happens and special advisers to those Ministers who are defying their leader completely ignore the memorandum from the Cabinet Secretary, on a scale of one to 10 how confident is the Minister that the Prime Minister will enforce the code? Does the Minister have the confidence to admit that these attempts to dilute the freedom of rebellious Ministers will only detract from the key issues that matter to voters in the referendum? It seems that the out campaign is attacking the referee, not the captain of the opposing side, yet the Prime Minister has a simple choice: either he gives his Ministers free rein to run their Departments, or he sacks them. It cannot be fudged for the next 114 days.

Matthew Hancock: I have a huge amount of respect for my hon. Friend. I will just say this: the reason this is required is the Prime Minister’s decision to allow Ministers to campaign to leave and to differ from the Government position. If that were not the case, the guidance would not be needed. As for the general public, I imagine that what most people will take away from this will be: when can we get on to the real discussion about whether we should be in or out of a reformed European Union?

Tommy Sheppard: Let me see if I have got this right. The Government’s position is that we should vote to remain in the European Union because, among other reasons, it will be good for jobs and employment. The Government’s problem is that the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for jobs and employment take a contrary view. The Government are now in a dilemma. Not only do they not want their own Ministers not to support the Government’s position, but they do not want them to actively campaign against it and use their offices to do so. In response, the Government are now putting the obligation on unelected civil servants to censor what Ministers can or cannot see within their area of expertise. This situation is farcical, but it has an undercurrent of something sinister about it too. Any self-respecting Minister should not accept these constraints. There is already a bit of tension in the Minister’s party on this question. How long does he think it will be before it breaks out into all-out civil war?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Member makes a central error in his characterisation of the situation. No Minister is censored—far from it. Ministers are allowed to campaign against the Government position. It is for civil servants, therefore, to follow the Government position. After all, it is required by law that they follow and support the position of the Government of the day.

Matthew Hancock: First of all, Mr Speaker, I have respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I also have respect for you—but perhaps I will drop all that. When the Cabinet met after the Prime Minister agreed the deal with other members of the European Union, Ministers at that point were asked to state their position—whether they wanted to remain or leave—and I doubt whether any of those positions will change.

Matthew Hancock: On the legal details, the 2015 Act also requires the Government to express their view and the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 requires civil servants to support the position of the Government of the day. On that basis, it is right to follow the procedure that was agreed by the Cabinet. The position of the Government is set out; Ministers may disagree with it, but civil servants must support the Government’s position.

Dennis Skinner: Here we are on the day after the Oscars. The family is opposite: threat and counter-threat. It reminds me of “The Godfather”. This could be “The Godfather Part IV”: will there be a horse’s head in the bed or will it be another animal?

Crispin Blunt: I find it hard to believe that on 20 February the Cabinet was aware of the implications of what it was doing. The central purpose of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was to achieve fairness in elections and in referendums, but now the Government have parked themselves on one side of the argument, dwarfing any influence from either of the campaign groups. Their action also goes against the strategic objective of offering the people a referendum to resolve the question of Britain’s role in the world one way or another. That question will only hold if the process is seen to be fair, but all this runs against that strategic objective.

Matthew Hancock: I disagree with my hon. Friend. The Government are required, under the European Union Referendum Act 2015, to take a position. They are also required—or commitments were given during the passage of that Act—to set out certain matters, including the process of leaving the European Union under article 50, which is in a document that we published this morning. During the passage of the referendum Act, there was a debate on how this could best be done, and we are acting on the conclusions that were reached.

Paul Flynn: Is this not constitutional gibberish, and utterly unworkable? The protestations that we hear from Ministers now would be much more impressive had they joined our Select Committee in condemning the politicisation of the civil service during the Scottish referendum campaign. The difference is that, whereas all Ministers agreed in the case of the Scottish referendum, in this case we have a disagreement, and a Department in which the “inners” can see the papers and the “outers” cannot. Is it not a fact that the only way of making this workable is for Ministers to resign and leave office until after 23 June?

Matthew Hancock: It is precisely because we did not want that to happen that we proposed these arrangements. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong, and misjudging the position, if he thinks that supporting the Government’s position is anything other than an impartial and proper course for civil servants to take. The alternative is to argue that civil servants should not support the Government’s position, and I think that that would be ridiculous.

Matthew Hancock: That is the normal course of events. It is for Ministers to make the argument, and for civil servants to support the Government’s position.

David Davis: It is all right, Mr Speaker. I was not sure whether it was the other David Davies whom you were calling.
	We are fortunate to live in a democracy. We are not guided by Cabinet Secretary guidelines. As far as I know there is no manifesto basis for this, and as far as I know there has been no House of Commons vote for it, so what is the constitutional basis of the Prime Minister’s decision? Is it the royal prerogative?

Margaret Ferrier: Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the Treasury’s most senior civil servant, was quoted as saying that he believed that impartiality guidelines did not apply in “extreme” cases such as the Scottish independence referendum. Would the Minister classify the EU referendum as an extreme case, and if so, can we expect normal rules of civil service neutrality to be completely disregarded?

Neil Carmichael: Does the Paymaster General agree that it would be supremely ironic if this referendum had an impact on the way in which our civil service operated in the future? It is absolutely right that the civil service should support the Government, and the Government have made the decision—the right decision, in my view—that we are safer, stronger and better in the European Union.

Matthew Hancock: It is disappointing that the leave campaign seems to want to focus on process issues such as this rather than discussing whether we would be better off inside a reformed European Union, as I believe we would. My hon. Friend raises an important point. If any Members do not think that the rules should operate in the way we published last week, the only other position would be for the civil service to support a position that was not the Government’s position, which would go against everything that it was set up to do.

John Cryer: Is not the Prime Minister effectively saying to his own Ministers, “You can exercise your democratic rights as long as you agree with me at the end of the day”? Is this not the latest sordid attempt—there will be more—to rig the referendum to get the result that the Prime Minister wants?

Nick Herbert: Does the Minister agree that the misunderstanding of the Government’s position has been evidenced by the last question, which suggested that the Prime Minister required Ministers to agree with him? That is not the case. The public will surely agree that fairness is ensured by the fact that Ministers are free to speak out. That is what the Prime Minister is allowing, and that is a generous position. There is no reason why those Ministers should be supported by the civil service or the taxpayer in expressing their view, to which they are entitled in conscience. If they feel that this is unfair, they have the option of not remaining in the Government.

Matthew Hancock: The challenge of taking a position other than the one the Government have taken is that it would require civil servants to do work that was not in support of the Government’s position. The Government have a position, and it is part of the civil service code, and it is put into law in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, that civil servants should support the position of the Government. It would put civil servants in a very difficult position if we were to do anything other than that.

Andrew Gwynne: I will be campaigning for Britain to remain in the EU, but I see no issue with all Ministers having access to the very strong arguments for Britain to remain in the EU—this is a matter of democracy. Is the Minister really suggesting that we could have a situation where a Secretary of State is denied access to key Government papers but his or her junior Ministers have access to that information?

Matthew Hancock: I do not know whether that was directed at people on the shadow Front Bench, but the situation is as I have set out. The key point is this: if we were to take any other position, we would have civil servants being asked not to support the position of the Government. We are approaching this in the way these things have been approached in referendums in the past—in 1975 and in the Scottish referendum—which seems perfectly reasonable.

Gerald Howarth: I think I heard the Minister say that dissenting Ministers will not be allowed to see papers making the case for Britain to remain in the EU, which suggests that the Government have very little confidence in their own arguments. May I put it to my right hon. Friend that it is a constitutional outrage to deny access to arguments that “may”—as the briefing paper says—have a bearing on the referendum to some key Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice who are intimately involved in the central issues of this referendum? The Government really need to think again about that, because otherwise the British people will think that the Government intend to rig the referendum.

Anne Main: The British public could be forgiven for thinking that, if someone such as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), is not permitted to see all the relevant documents, he may be unable to advise the Government. The Government may then come to a fixed opinion on a particular view such as benefits without having all the facts. A question and answer document from the Cabinet Office says:
	“Can dissenting Ministers see Department papers on matters that aren’t directly about the Referendum, but may have a bearing.”
	The answer is:
	“They can see or commission any papers produced by their Departments in the normal way except those that have a bearing on the referendum question or are intended to be used in support of their position”.
	It is not a simple black and white matter; it is a matter of interpretation. Special advisers are being handcuffed and told that they must keep things from the Secretary of State. That is appalling. Are the Government afraid that the facts might change the minds of the public and some Cabinet members?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend’s question was focused on what the public think. I believe they will think, “Please can we get on to debating the substance of the question rather than the process of how to make sure that Ministers are allowed, unusually, to depart from the Government position while the constitutional position of the civil service remains in place.”

David Jones: Is it true, as reported in The Times this morning, that without the consent or knowledge of the Secretary of State, officials of the DWP carried out research on the instructions of No. 10 to help support the case for remaining in the
	EU? If that is the case, will the Minister please explain how the Secretary of State can be expected to be responsible for the work of his own Department?

Matthew Hancock: These guidelines are restricted to the issues of the question of in/out. It is perfectly normal —it happens all the time—for there to be communications between Departments and No. 10. That is how the Government operate.

Tim Loughton: Perhaps the solution is for Ministers to submit freedom of information requests to their own Departments to get the answers. A key part of the Prime Minister’s reform package was very complex changes to benefits and indexing of benefits. If, at the next DWP Question Time, I ask the Secretary of State what progress he is making to determine whether those reforms are deliverable by 23 June, will he be able to give me an honest and full answer?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course he will. On issues that are not about the in/out referendum question, Ministers will be fully informed. That is the position. As to the question of whether this will change people’s minds, the Government have made their position clear, which is that, obviously, we are in favour of remain.

Edward Leigh: Say for a moment that I am the fisheries Minister, young, ambitious, good looking and anxious to do the Prime Minister’s bidding, and the Prime Minister tells me that I have to set out my vision of what life outside the EU means for fishing—indeed that is a huge question for our fishing fleets—what do I do? The EU determines everything in my Department. I have no national policy on fishing, but I happen to be in favour of the out campaign. Do I go home for four months? Do I get no advice from Ministers? Is it not so much “Yes, Minister” as just “Go home for four months and we will see you in June”?

Matthew Hancock: Making what is called a direction, such as that which I made on Kids Company because I thought that it was worth spending the money to look after those kids—it is right that Ministers should be able democratically to override the advice of civil servants when they choose to, so long as that is published—is about the expenditure of money. The EU debate is not specifically about the expenditure of money, although there are debates about growth, jobs and the economy, and so the question would not arise.

Matthew Hancock: No, on the contrary. This guidance is a precise consequence of the Prime Minister’s decision to allow Ministers to campaign to leave. If the Prime Minister had not decided to allow Ministers to remain in the Government but to campaign to leave the European Union against the recommendation of the Government, such rules would not be necessary and we would not have had to publish them. This is a direct consequence of the Prime Minister’s decision to allow that debate to take place and to allow Ministers to take one or other side of the debate.

Andrew Percy: Talking of guidance, my association was this morning issued with guidance from our north of England field director stating:
	“The Party is neutral, which means that as an organisation we are not getting involved in any way on an official basis. In practice this means that Associations must not use any resources available to them, including money, data, premises etc. to promote a particular view.”
	Given that this is a Conservative Government from the Prime Minister all the way down to us lowly Back Benchers, who are all members of a party that has no official view on the matter, why should civil servants who work for Conservative Ministers take a view on it? That is leading people out there to conclude that there is stitch-up to try and keep us in the wasteful EU.

Points of Order

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the exchanges that we have just had, it was noted that the Minister did not refer to the question and answer brief that has been circulated by the Cabinet Office to civil servants, which carries some of the wider interpretation of the letter. I wonder how I can draw the House’s attention to the fact that we will be publishing it on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee website later today or tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows—I say this in response to his spurious point of order—he has achieved his objective. He should consider the matter so advertised.

Mr Speaker: I am not sure there is a “further” to that point of order, but I will hear it first and then come to a view about it.

Anne Main: I read out the self-same question and answer, which uses the words “may have a bearing”. At what point may we have an explanation of what “may have a bearing” means? Who will arbitrate on that?

Mr Speaker: That is a matter for the Government. Legendarily, the Minister for the Cabinet Office is always keen to address the House—indeed, in the past he has likened himself to Disraeli, who had a notable enthusiasm for addressing the House. If he wishes to respond to the hon. Lady with that legendary succinctness for which he is renowned, we are happy to hear from him, but he is not under any obligation to do so.

Mr Speaker: We are extremely grateful to the Minister. I am not sure, from the head movements of the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), that he has satisfied her, but I am not sure any Minister would have been able to do so. None the less, the Minister has graciously come to the Dispatch Box.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: I will come back to Members who are expectant—[Interruption.] Well, expectant of the opportunity to raise points of order, I should perhaps say. But perhaps I may be permitted to take other points of order first. We will come to those illustrious denizens ere long.

Nia Griffith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning the Secretary of State for Wales—I have made his office aware of my intention to raise this point of order—announced major changes to the timetable and content of the proposed Wales Bill; he has decided to jackknife the Bill and skid it to an undignified halt. Instead of coming to the House to inform right hon. and hon. Members and answer their questions about how he will proceed, he choose to make that significant announcement in front of a gathering of journalists in Cardiff, even suggesting on Twitter that hon. Members can wait until Thursday to question him. Did he give you any indication that he would be announcing this major change of policy today, Mr Speaker, and has he indicated that he will be making an oral statement to the House, as per paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The answer is that I have had no advance notice of this matter. It would be only fair for me, from the Chair, to say at this stage that whether it amounts to what she has described as a major change of policy or is merely a temporary pause or tactical judgment, I do not know. Suffice it to say that if there is a change of policy or a significant change in Government intentions for a notable period, the House would expect properly to be informed of that, and there are means by which Ministers can inform the House: either through the device of an answer to a written question or by a written ministerial statement. To my knowledge, neither has thus far been forthcoming. The hon. Lady’s point of order and my response to it will shortly be heard by the Wales Office, and I hope that proper account will be taken of it. If the hon. Lady needs to return to the point, doubtless she will do so.

Kirsten Oswald: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance in relation to a matter that is of some concern to me. In December I asked, by means of a written question, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had last met the Financial Conduct Authority to discuss certain matters. The response advised me that Treasury Ministers meet a wide variety of organisations and referred me to the Treasury’s transparency reports online, stating that that is where details of such meetings are published. The reports detailed no bilateral meetings between the Treasury and the FCA over a two-year period.
	I therefore challenged the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—she is aware that I am raising this matter today—on that point during a Back-Bench business debate on 12 January. She did not address the matter in her response, so I raised it with her again in a Back-Bench business debate on 1 February. To my great surprise, the hon. Lady stated:
	“Contrary to what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire seems to think,”—[Official Report, 1 February 2016; Vol. 605, c. 748.]
	she had met the acting chief executive of the FCA, and that she regretted that I had formed a different opinion.
	Of course, my opinion was formed on the basis of a written answer, the Treasury’s own transparency reports and exchanges with the Minister in this Chamber, all of which I should have been entitled to rely upon. It is worth noting that a similar issue has arisen in relation to another question, with the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People referring me to a non-existent or impossible to locate piece of information on the Department for Work and Pensions website.
	The record therefore suggests that I have misunderstood or am mistaken, but neither is true. I would be very much obliged for your advice, Mr Speaker, on how to put the record straight on this matter. Finally, I would be most grateful if you could advise me on how best to stop Ministers referring Members to websites that do not contain relevant information.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that confirmation. The short answer to the hon. Lady—this is for the benefit of the House—is that answers to Members’ questions should be direct, substantive and candid. I have sympathy with the view, which she has expressed, that it is not helpful if Government Departments simply refer right hon. and hon. Members in written answers to websites on which the information requested may be located but cannot easily be found. The much more straightforward process, which I think the public would expect, would be to provide an answer to the question. It is not really all that complicated.
	That said, I have to emphasise, of course, that the content of written answers, and indeed of ministerial statements in the House, has to be a matter for the judgment of individual Ministers; it is not for the Chair to determine. However, I am offering an overall sentiment, which I think would be shared across the House. As to how the hon. Lady can put the matter straight, I suggest that, by dint of this point of order, she has begun to do so.

Mr Speaker: I fear that it would be hazardous for me to tread on the terrain of what might be called the “known unknowns” or even the “unknown unknowns”. That would be difficult. The question, though a very good and legitimate one, is, I fear, at this stage hypothetical, but it is a problematic matter. The best I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that the Chair, of course, will keenly attend to events and to the process of question and answer, and we will have to look at this matter as and when it arises, on a case by case basis. I will not be looking at it proactively, but if Members raise the matter with the Chair, the Chair will do his best to respond.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have already expressed my admiration for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is on the Front Bench. I wonder whether there is any mechanism to reward someone who, first, is thrown into the lion’s den and, secondly, has to defend the indefensible.

Mr Speaker: I think I will treat that as what it is: not a point of order, but an inventive rhetorical question. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman seems justly satisfied, so I think we will, for now, leave it there. We are deeply grateful to the Minister for coming into the Chamber and responding to our inquiries.
	If there are no further points of order, and the appetite has been satisfied, at any rate for today, we now come to the motion on the draft European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016. Just before I ask the Minister—my illustrious neighbour, the Member for Aylesbury—to move the motion, I should inform the House that I have now considered the instrument, and I have decided not to certify it under Standing Order No. 83P.

Referendums

David Lidington: I beg to move,
	That the draft European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 22 February, be approved.
	The statutory instrument before us does a simple, but critical job: it puts in place the necessary legislation to enable a referendum to be held on 23 June this year. It is the last piece of legislation that will be debated in this Chamber to make that vote possible. As such, it represents Parliament taking the final steps towards an historic moment when, for the first time in over 40 years, the British people will be given their say on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a few days ago his intention to hold the referendum on 23 June, and the Government believe that that strikes an appropriate balance, giving plenty of time for a vigorous and comprehensive debate. Ultimately, however, the date is a matter for Parliament to decide, and as set out in the European Union Referendum Act 2015, it is a decision that must be approved both here and in the House of Lords.

Bill Cash: I am fascinated by my right hon. Friend’s reference to vigorous and open debate, because it is quite clear from the preceding urgent question and from many other matters that have come to light recently that the one thing that everybody needs—information—is the one thing that people are going to find themselves deprived of. If the voters do not have balanced, impartial and accurate information, what are they supposed to do?

Kate Hoey: rose—

David Lidington: First, the letter was not ignored, and we certainly took account of the views of the devolved Administrations even though we decided in the end to disagree with their recommendation. I want to come to that point at a later stage in my remarks.
	The date is just one element of the order, but clearly the most important, because the remaining elements largely flow from it. I will therefore explain the Government’s thinking on the date and then turn to the rest of the order. There must be enough time for a full, serious and considered debate that allows all the issues to have a full airing, and the campaigners must have enough time to put their case to the British people. On the other hand, although this may grieve some hon. Members, the campaign cannot continue indefinitely. The vote should be timely, while the issues are live and the details fresh—and we should also be wary of testing the public’s patience. Several prominent campaign groups are already active on both sides. Following the Prime Minister’s announcement on the outcome of the renegotiation, the debate on the referendum question will now begin in earnest and is already starting to gather real momentum.
	The Government selected 23 June because we needed enough time for a proper airing of the issues, and we thought that any sooner would risk curtailing that debate, but to go any later would test the patience of the British people. School holidays in Scotland begin on 24 June, and from then people will be travelling and enjoying their summer. Later than 23 June would mean, in essence, waiting until after the summer holiday period had concluded in all parts of the United Kingdom and in Gibraltar. Frankly, I think that the British people would have found it very difficult to understand if we had asked them to wait seven or eight months after the conclusion of the renegotiation before they could have their say.

Philip Davies: I have previously raised with my right hon. Friend the fact that a European Council meeting is also scheduled to take place on 23 June. What can we do to ensure that, if the leave campaign looks to be gaining momentum at a late stage, that will not be used to pretend that there are things on the meeting’s agenda to try to change people’s opinions, or that things will not be leaked in advance of that meeting to try to give people the impression that the Government have agreed a better deal than is actually the case?

David Lidington: I think my hon. Friend needs to study more carefully the words both of the document published at the end of the renegotiation and of a number of other European leaders. They could not have made it clearer, first, that they were not interested in a hypothetical further renegotiation in the event of a vote to leave, and secondly, that the very important safeguards that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured during the renegotiation would lapse automatically in the event of such a vote. That is written into the document itself.
	In practical terms, holding the vote on 23 June means 18 weeks between announcing the deal and the vote, and a full 10 weeks’ regulated referendum campaign period, with six weeks for the designation of lead campaigners, thus meeting the Electoral Commission recommendations. We envisage that the designation process will be commenced on 4 March and that the Electoral Commission will have to designate the two umbrella campaign groups by 14 April at the latest. The Electoral Commission supports the Government’s approach to the timing of the referendum. Last week it published its assessment of readiness and said that it was content that the date
	“does not pose a significant risk to a well-run referendum”.
	It is true, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has said, that there are still some concerns about the date, particularly among Members of the three devolved Administrations and right hon. and hon. Members in this place who represent those three parts of the United Kingdom. In particular, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) expressed concern during Foreign Office questions about the possible interaction with the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on 5 May, which is also the date for various local and mayoral elections in different parts of the United Kingdom.
	I think that those fears are misplaced, not least because multiple elections are already being held on 5 May. I really do not understand why a referendum that will take place a full seven weeks after the date of the devolved parliamentary and Assembly elections should be regarded as disrespectful. By contrast, I would argue that we are treating voters with respect when we assume that they should be perfectly capable of distinguishing between two different campaigns that will be nearly two months apart.

Jonathan Edwards: The Minister has just confirmed that the official campaign will launch bang in the middle of the devolved Administrations’ campaigns. It is quite an achievement to get Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionists, the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru and the Labour party in Wales to agree on anything. Why is he not taking seriously the concerns expressed by all those parties?

David Lidington: The right hon. Gentleman puts the case very well. Others have said that June is simply too soon, and I do not agree. Traditionally, in our history, a general election has been held with only six weeks’ notice. Only since the implementation of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 under the coalition Government have we moved away from that practice. The referendum has had a much longer gestation period. The intention to hold a referendum before the end of 2017 was announced in the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech in January 2013, and it was reaffirmed at the general election last May, and again when the European Union Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015. The intended date was announced four months in advance. The referendum has been a long time coming.

Peter Grant: The Minister is trying manfully but, dare I say it, completely unsuccessfully to explain what consideration the Government have given to the strong representations they have had from the elected Governments of 75% of the equal partners in this Union. I appreciate that he does not have time to do so now, but will he undertake to make sure that full details of the Government’s consideration of that letter are placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible after the debate?

David Lidington: We took account of that letter. We also took careful account of the specific request from the official foreign affairs spokesman of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Gordon, during Foreign Office questions on 12 January for an assurance that the date of the referendum would be
	“at least six weeks after the date of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections”.—[Official Report, 12 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 683.]
	That request made by the right hon. Gentleman—I presume on behalf of his party, for which he was speaking at Foreign Office questions—has been met, and has been met in full.
	The Electoral Commission has confirmed that it is content with the Government’s proposals and has said that, in its view, arrangements for a well-run referendum are now well advanced. The statutory instrument has been considered by both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Both have considered the statutory instrument, and neither found any cause for concern.
	I turn now to the other aspects of the regulations. They are very much in line with the framework set up by the European Union Referendum Act 2015, so I shall be brief. As well as setting the date, the regulations do three things. First, they set the start date for the designation process. That is the process by which the Electoral Commission appoints lead campaigners on one or both sides. We have followed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and allowed a full six weeks. That will give campaigners a four-week window to finalise and submit their applications, after which the Electoral Commission will have up to two weeks to decide which, if any, applicants to designate as the lead for each side. Let me be absolutely clear, to avoid misunderstanding. The regulations do not tell the Electoral Commission how to make its decision. That decision is entirely impartial, and the test the Electoral Commission must apply when making its decision is set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, as modified by the European Union Referendum Act. All the regulations do is set the start of the process as 4 March, while the rest of the timetable, finishing on 14 April at the latest, was set by the 2000 Act.

Mark Field: Will the Minister give us some indication of whether the Electoral Commission’s designation process is open to challenge, and if so, of how that challenge would operate?

David Lidington: Any executive decision by any public authority might be at risk of judicial review, but criteria for the Electoral Commission are set out in PPERA and they will guide the commission in making its assessment. I am sure that the commission will want to explain its verdict when it is published. There would have to be a pretty overwhelming case for a judicial review application for it to succeed, but such an option is available.
	The Electoral Commission’s initial guidance for campaigners on this issue was updated on 5 February, so potential applicants have had plenty of notice. The commission has also now published the application form online. I remind the House that the lead campaigners, once designated, will receive a number of benefits, including a higher spending limit of up to £7 million, a free delivery of mailings to every household or every elector and, assuming that campaigners are designated on both sides, access to a grant of up to £600,000 and access to a broadcast.
	The second additional element in the regulations is the referendum period—namely, when full financial and campaigning controls apply and, in particular, when spending limits are imposed on campaigners. The referendum period, as set out in the regulations, is a full ten weeks and will not overlap with the designation process. That was the approach recommended by the Electoral Commission. The referendum period will, under the regulations, start on 15 April.

Pat Glass: The main purpose of the statutory instrument is to set 23 June 2016 as the date of the referendum, which will take place over the whole of the UK and in Gibraltar. It prescribes the referendum period, which will begin on 15 April 2016, and it prescribes 4 March 2016 as the start of the period in which applications can be made to become designated organisations in the referendum. I understand that that poses no problem for the organisations in the remain campaign, but those in the hopelessly splintered out campaign seem to be having a much greater problem. Now is the time for them to get their act together if they are to hit the deadline.
	The statutory instrument also sets out periods for the reporting of donations or regulated transactions—for example, loans—by permitted participants who are not registered parties or are minor parties. It sets out the dates on or before which reports must be delivered to the Electoral Commission. Okay so far?

David Lidington: indicated assent.

Pat Glass: Labour has always said that as soon as the Government’s European negotiations are completed, they should get on with the referendum and end the uncertainty, which is bad for British jobs, growth, investment and working people.

Jonathan Edwards: The shadow Minister will be aware of the letter written by the First Minister of Wales in conjunction with the First Ministers of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Of course, the First Minister of Wales is a Labour party member. He said:
	“We believe that holding a referendum as early as June will mean that a significant part of the referendum campaign will necessarily run in parallel with those elections and risks confusing issues at a moment when clarity is required.”
	Will the shadow Minister support his position tonight in the Lobby when there is a vote on this issue? If the Labour party here abstains or votes with the Government, does it not show that we cannot take a word the First Minister says seriously?

Pat Glass: I will come on to those issues.
	Labour agreed with the Electoral Commission that the referendum date should be separate from that when other polls are taking place, and succeeded in pressuring the Government to amend the European Union Referendum Bill to stop the referendum being held on 5 May 2016 so that it did not clash with the other elections on that day. However, we do not agree with the SNP and others that it is in some way disrespectful to hold the referendum on 23 June.

Pat Glass: People will have to make a decision on those issues, but they are not related to this statutory instrument. We accept that this great country would be able to make its way in the world outside the EU, but leaving would cost us dearly in all kinds of ways including jobs, our competitiveness in business, and the safety of our citizens from terrorism, crime, climate change and war. At a time of Russian expansionism and international terrorism from groups such as ISIS-Daesh, we do not believe that it is right to risk our safety and security as a nation. We want the UK to lead, not leave, Europe. We are the second biggest economy in the EU, and many of our partners such as Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and others want to work with us further to reform the EU, and they are looking to the UK to lead on that. Leaving the EU risks future peace in Europe, and Britain’s influence in the world.
	In government, Labour passed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and we supported the passage of the European Union Referendum Act 2015. We support this statutory instrument, and we will leave it to others to moan about the date of the referendum. We are getting on and putting our energy into winning the referendum and keeping Britain leading in Europe.

Bill Cash: The date is obviously a crucial moment in the development of this referendum, but I have reservations about 23 June. I have not yet decided, and I want to hear what the Scottish National party has to say about this issue, because that will be interesting and may have some impact on the way I vote. I am interested in the democratic side of this issue.
	On 3 February, in my response to the Prime Minister’s statement on the UK-EU renegotiation, I said that this is all about voters’ trust, and I went on to give examples of why I thought that promises and principles had been broken. Above all else, I asked whether this will be a political stitch-up by the European Council because the agreement—such as it is—and any other subsequent legal arrangements must be both legally binding and irreversible.
	Information was contained in the White Paper published a few days ago, and I have had quite an interesting weekend, given the remarks that were made about me—I need not elaborate on that, and I assure you, Mr Speaker, that it caused me no concern whatsoever. Whether this agreement will be irreversible is a question of trust, and today we had an extremely important urgent question on information. I put a question to the Minister, and tomorrow my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) will interview the Cabinet Secretary on this matter. The real question is about voter trust. On 23 June, will people have enough proper information, based on a fair arrangement between those on both sides of the debate? The Government first insisted on the purdah arrangements that they wanted to use for the whole of the civil service machinery. We drove them off on that, but then they brought in, through the House of Lords, a legal duty to provide such information —if I may say so, they pretended that that had come from other people in the House of Lords, but it was clearly at least half sponsored by the Government.
	When we got to ping-pong, I waited until the last minute before it ended, and I got up and asked the Minister—he knows what is coming—whether he would give me a straight answer, yes or no, about whether the information that is due to be published would be both accurate and impartial. He said, “Of course.” He added that it would be perverse if the Government were to do otherwise.
	Well, Mr Speaker, I have to say that I am intrigued. On 23 June, the people may not have impartial and accurate information. I believe the Government are probably, if not certainly, in breach of their duty under sections 6 and 7 of the European Referendum Act 2015. Furthermore, despite what the Minister had to say on this today, the words “the opinion of” in this context will not, I believe, be a sufficient safeguard from the potential concerns that they know must already be in some people’s minds that this is not fair and may well not be legal. This is a very, very important matter.

Bob Stewart: I am confused. When the Paymaster General answered the question I put to him, he said that the Cabinet Secretary is not neutral. That I accept, when the Cabinet Secretary is working for the Government. In this matter, however, the Cabinet Secretary may well be working for the people, because it is the people who are going to decide this matter. In my view, it is therefore proper that the Cabinet Secretary, or someone of his ilk, should draft or head up a paper that puts the facts for both sides of the argument, so that the people who are going to make the decision—this is the people’s decision—can make a decision that is based on objective facts.

Bill Cash: The sentiments my hon. Friend expresses are very relevant to the question of voter trust. In the debate on 25 February, and when the Foreign Secretary gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee, which has considered these matters in great depth, I said that the Government are effectively—in fact, I will go further and say definitely—cheating the voters. This cannot be said to be legally binding and irreversible. In the debate on 25 February, I pointed out that the Council conclusions—I ask that hon. Members look at the Council conclusions—refer to the words “legally binding” and there is a common accord with respect to the international law agreement. What they cannot do is say that it would be irreversible. Furthermore, although Mr Tusk, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been saying “irreversible”, they cannot prove that that is the case. I will explain why in one second.
	On 23 June, a most momentous and historic decision will be taken by all the people in the United Kingdom who can vote. They have a right to know whether the question they are going to be asked, on whether to remain or to leave, can be answered. It is the basis of my proposition that it is impossible for them to know whether it is going to be irreversible for a simple reason. Under the international agreement where the European Court may or may not take into account the question that has been posed by the White Paper, certainly there is no guarantee of a treaty change and certainly there is no guarantee that the mechanics of the international law decision will produce a definite result that the European Court can decide on. Nobody can say that the European Court will or will not accept any treaty change. As a matter of fact, with respect to the question of referendums, there is no guarantee that there will not be referendums.
	There are currently at least four Governments of the 28 in the EU, in the great stitch-up in the political decision-making process I referred to, who barely have control over their government at all. There are massive problems in Portugal and Spain, and now in Ireland as well, and there are massive problems in Greece. There is absolutely no reason why anybody should guarantee either that there will be treaty change or that it will be irreversible.
	I happened to take part in the referendums that produced “no” votes in other countries, including France and Denmark. To say as a matter of absolute certainty in this disgraceful White Paper that it is irreversible when it is impossible as a matter of fact, let alone of law, for anyone to say that they know what the European Court will do or indeed that there will not be a referendum and what the outcome of that would be, is simply unacceptable.

Bill Cash: Absolutely nothing at all. I think that the British people, who are a great people, are waking up to this. As I said in last Thursday’s debate, Churchill said that we should tell the truth to the British people and they will follow, but they are not being told the truth—that is the real truth, and nothing but the truth.
	A comprehensive poll was published in the Evening Standard on Friday on the question of whether the voters trust the outcome of this negotiation. The result is simple to describe: 53% said that they did not trust it at all; only 22% said that they did; as for the balance, the pollsters said that half of those who were undecided tended not to trust it. I know that a poll is a poll, but I also say that on the question of trust, the outcome is either to be trusted or not to be trusted. This whole negotiated package, whether it be looked at from a political or a legal point of view, is not to be trusted.
	I say that to the House of Commons because this is where the real issues have to be resolved, but we have quite rightly handed this over to the voters—and they do not trust it. I do not think that anything they will have heard today from the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, or anything they will hear tomorrow from the Cabinet Secretary, or indeed any of the matters discussed in relation to the component parts of this package, either in aggregate or individually, will provide any reason for anybody to trust this deal.
	The question before us today about the date of 23 June must be weighed against the background of whether that date is appropriate. I want to listen to what SNP Members say, as I have a great interest in that. They are elected to stand up for their own views and for their own part of the United Kingdom. I may disagree with what they say, but I saw what happened with the Scottish referendum, particularly regarding the date and the length of time allowed for debate. We will hear from SNP Members how they were stitched up by the BBC and all the rest of it. What I am saying is that this entire question of the date is dependent on the extent to which proper information is given to the voter. As I said in the urgent question earlier, the crucial issue is what reliance the voters can have on the fact that the information they are being given is transparent and honest, and additionally impartial and accurate, which is what the Minister for Europe told me on the Floor of the House it would be.

Bill Cash: What I would say in reply is very simple. If my hon. Friend were good enough to read the speech and the remarks made by my good right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the question of the whole package, he would realise that our right hon. Friend says that we do not want to look at anything other than the whole package. That is what he says; my hon. Friend should read it for himself. It is very strange that we are going to such lengths, with the Prime Minister roaming around the country making all these speeches, with the putting out of all this information, with all this business about the civil service and the guidance, and with all the rest of matters that I have referred to. Why is so much emphasis being placed on this? Why are the airwaves being dominated on such a scale and why is so much paper being used?
	This reminds me of what I said to the late Baroness Thatcher when I was invited to lunch in Downing Street. When I went into the room, most of the Cabinet were sitting around the table. She said, “Bill, you sit next to me.” Then she turned to Geoffrey Howe and said, “I’ve brought Bill in to talk about Europe.” Then she turned to me and said, “What do you feel about Europe, Bill?” I said, while looking at Geoffrey Howe, “Prime Minister, I think your task is more difficult than Churchill’s.”
	She said, “You will have to explain this, won’t you?” I said, “Prime Minister, Churchill’s task was more difficult than yours for this reason. You are in greater difficulty than he because he was faced with bombs and aircraft, but you are faced with pieces of paper.” It is those pieces of paper that I am worried about, and I think the voters should be as well.

Stephen Gethins: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), and I will address some of the points he raised.
	Let me first make it clear—it seems appropriate to do so in this place—that the Scottish National party position has not changed. Our position remains consistent in that we are still against the 23 June referendum date. I say to the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) that our position has remained unchanged despite what the Conservatives have said on this issue.
	My first point is about the important issue of respect. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) mentioned the Labour First Minister of Wales, who wrote a letter along with the First Ministers of Scotland and Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and his colleagues also raised the issue of the date. The point was that this campaign period will overlap with the May election campaign, and this was raised not only by the three First Ministers, but by Jenny Watson, the chair of the Electoral Commission, who said:
	“Referendum campaign periods overlap with May election campaign periods if the referendum period is held on any date in June”.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) also made this point very clear. If the Minister would like to speak to whoever takes the Prime Minister’s mail, he will find out about a letter of correction from my right hon. Friend who was misrepresented by the Minister for Europe and by a number of the Minister’s colleagues. Many of them signed my early-day motion 1042. It was signed by Members of all parties, including Conservative Members, given the respect agenda on this issue. There is a respect agenda—there is the idea that democracy does not begin and end in this place. We have incredibly important elections coming up in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and English local authorities, which is a point that we have made consistently. It is one of the reasons why we will vote against the motion today.
	Before I discuss some of the other issues associated with the date, let me deal with some of the practical questions. Will the Minister tell us what significant changes have been made in the statutory instrument as a result of his consultations with the devolved Administrations, and will he make his correspondence available in the House of Commons Library? That is a very simple question, which was asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). Perhaps the Minister will make a note of it.
	We see problems throughout this instrument. It states that the referendum period begins on 15 April 2016, three weeks before the devolved elections. It also states that the first reporting period ends on 21 April 2016, and the report is supposed to be sent to the Electoral Commission on 28 April, one week before those crucial devolved elections. When the Minister answers our question about what practical changes have been made in the SI as a result of his correspondence, will he also tell us what impact the purdah rules will have on any programme for government that might need to be agreed? Under the Scotland Act, it could be up to 28 days before the appointment of a new First Minister is agreed to, and I think that broadly similar arrangements apply to First Ministers in Wales and Northern Ireland. The referendum campaign eats into that period quite significantly.
	I refer the Minister to paragraph 7.11 of the explanatory memorandum, which states:
	“It is for the Devolved Administrations to consider any restrictions on their own referendum-related activity”.
	Given that the Minister wrote that, can he tell us what correspondence he has had with the devolved Administrations about it, about the formation of new Governments, and about what impact this could have on the publication of a programme for government? As was pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), there are European Union issues that will have a significant impact on that programme, including agriculture and fisheries. Let us not forget that it was the United Kingdom Government who described our fishing industry as expendable, not the European Union. What will happen in regard to those and other issues that are affected by European Union legislation?

Bill Cash: As a veteran of the Scotland Acts, all the way back to when Mr Dewar was Secretary of State at—I believe—the beginning of 1979, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman recalls the reserve powers? Would they not be an issue?

Stephen Gethins: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has made a very good point. European Union legislation has a significant impact on significant powers that sit with the Scottish Parliament, and the same applies to Northern Ireland and Wales. I have mentioned some already, but energy is another example. On renewables, for instance, the Scottish Government are much more in line with our European partners than with the United Kingdom Government.
	Let me now address issues that the hon. Member for Stone raised in what was—again, as usual—a very informed speech. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon has come into the Chamber, because this is a good time to remind the House that he called the independence referendum 545 days before the day on which it took place. I shall give the Minister some leeway by saying that SNP Members are not seeking quite that number of days. However, we need to have the courage of our convictions, and have a proper debate.
	The hon. Gentleman and I will not agree on this particular referendum. Indeed, I am not sure that we will agree on many referendums that may be held during my time in the House. One thing on which we will agree, however, is that a proper debate takes a great deal longer than the seven weeks that we have been given, and we want a proper debate that goes to the heart of this issue. As someone who wants Scotland, and the rest of the United Kingdom, to remain part of the European Union, I believe that our case stands up to scrutiny, and that the Conservatives should have the courage of their convictions and subject it to appropriate scrutiny.

Bill Cash: Whether or not we agree on the immigration issue, does the hon. Gentleman agree with what I said on 3 February? As everyone knows from the recent figures, the question of immigration—which is actually about numbers and the effect on social services, including those in Scotland—has now been whittled down to a narrow argument about in-work benefits, on which the Government want to go on harping so that they can distract attention from the really big question, which is “Who governs this country, and are we going to be in the second tier of a two-tier German Europe?”

Stephen Gethins: The hon. Gentleman was clearly listening to Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, when she raised that very point about in-work migrant benefits this morning. I believe that people who are going to live and work in a country, and contribute, have every right to the same benefits, just as 2 million United Kingdom citizens, including 1 million in Spain, benefit from being part of the European Union.
	Nicola Sturgeon made what I thought was a very valid point. When we were “whittling down” the debate, as the hon. Gentleman put it, to a discussion of the rather minor issue of in-work migrant benefits at the European Council, time was taken from a discussion of the refugee crisis, in regard to which, incidentally, Ireland was giving way on its opt-out. The hon. Gentleman will not agree with me about this, but I think that that had a great deal more to do with the Minister trying—unsuccessfully, as I can see—to keep his Back Benchers happy than with anything to do with the broader debate on our membership of the European Union.

Stephen Gethins: As a number of us have said, mid-September is often a good time for a referendum. It gives us the summer days to campaign and engage, and the longer nights to chap on people’s doors. It is to be hoped that people will also form their own groups in an organic way. Mid-September is probably a good time, but we would certainly not opt for 23 June.
	Let us give this a little bit of time. I urge all Members to listen to the social democratic case—as someone described it earlier—that was put by the First Minister this morning not so far from here, at St John’s Smith Square. Let us look at what membership of the European Union does. The United Kingdom could stand on its own two feet and be successful as an independent member state outside the European Union. We absolutely reject the “Project Fear” scare tactics: they do nothing for the case for staying in, and nothing for the case for going out. I hope that we will all bear in mind the 20-point lead that the no campaign squandered in Scotland, not just because of the positive case that we put, but also, to an extent, because of the fear tactics that those campaigners used. I hope that the Conservatives will learn the lessons of that referendum.

Kate Hoey: I am sorry; I am not a Minister yet.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman and I are on different sides, but I agree with him that this should be a positive campaign. May I return him to the issue of what I consider to be the hugely important letter that was signed by the First Ministers of the three home countries, all of whom had different views on the European Union? Does it not shame the Government that they showed so little respect—for respect is the word—by simply throwing that letter away and implying that it meant absolutely nothing?

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is making a very intelligent speech. He mentioned “Project Fear”. Did he happen to catch “Newsnight” on Friday, when there was an analysis of “Project Fear”? John McTernan, a Labour strategist in Scotland, said that it was all about ramping up the risk. That is exactly the sort of campaign that we do not want to risk. I am afraid that a campaign based on that premise will fail.

Stephen Gethins: I hope that, given his track record, Mr McTernan will not be on our side during the European referendum campaign, because otherwise we could be in serious difficulties.
	The hon. Gentleman has made a good point about “Project Fear”. Let us hear a positive case about the economic and social benefits, and about the benefits of an arrangement whereby independent member states agree on a common set of rules. I hope that the Minister will give us a few more pointers. I have already set him a few questions. Here is another: will there be a special recess, or, if the Minister thinks that he will lose—we would not advocate this—will the Government abandon Prime Minister’s Question Time at the last minute in order to rush off and campaign?

Bill Cash: In relation to “Project Fear”, which is very real, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should listen to Mervyn King, the former Governor of the Bank of England, who said that it was the euro and Europe that were causing massive unemployment and making Europe so dysfunctional? In fact, the dangers to the UK and to Scotland are also dangers to Europe as a whole. We have only to look at the way in which the Germans treated the Greeks, not to mention opening the doors to immigration, causing dislocation and more barbed wire in Europe today then there was even during the cold war.

Stephen Gethins: When we talk about “Project Fear”, we have to acknowledge that it is taking place on both sides of the debate. There has been a positive debate on the environmental benefits of membership; when Germany was experiencing acid rain as a result of UK industry, for example, we had to formulate a common set of rules. Let us also think about the benefits to the economy when people go on holiday. Also, the benefits to Scotland’s small and medium-sized enterprises of exporting to Europe are worth £2,000 to every man, woman and child in Scotland.
	I say to the hon. Member for Stone that I want to have a positive debate, including with him, and I am sure that we will do so over the next little while. Let us not mistake the faults of the European Union for the faults of the member states. This is a mistake that we know only too well in Scotland. Let us have a positive debate, but let us have an honest debate as well.

John Redwood: I welcome a fairly early date for the referendum. I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but there is only so much that I can take of all the stories of the pestilence, famine and plague that are going to be visited upon us by the very European Union countries that the Government say we love and work well with. The Government have this strange vision that those countries would suddenly change and become extremely unpleasant were we to want a relationship based on friendship and trade rather than on the current treaties. I personally think that 16 weeks would be quite enough to do the job that I would love the Government to do, which is to win it for the leave campaign by using this highly inappropriate tone and by constantly slanging off our European partners by telling us just how unpleasant they would be. I would have thought that a Government wishing to encourage us to stay in the European Union would want to be rather more obliging about our European partners and to paint a picture of how things might be better were we to stay in, rather than concentrating only on ascribing false futures to the leave campaign.
	I am interjecting in this debate because I am worried that 16 weeks might not be long enough for the Government to carry out all the tasks necessary to fulfil the requirements of the legislation. In particular, I have been moved to that view by listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who is often absolutely right about these points and their salience. The Government have an important duty to provide impartial information to the public as part of the task of preparing them for the referendum. Having seen their work so far, I am afraid to say that it fails by all standards. It is not impartial, it is not well researched and it is often exceedingly misleading. I am using parliamentary language, Mr Speaker; I might use richer language were I not inside the House. It seems to me that the Government are going to need a lot more time to work with their ever willing officials to come up with balanced, mature and sensible information about what the future might look like under either scenario.
	One thing that the Government have clearly had no time to prepare so far—this is a particularly worrying lacuna—is information on what the future might look like if we stay in. We have had no response from the Government on how they would respond to “The Five Presidents’ Report: Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union” or on how they would handle demands for capital markets union, banking union, full economic and monetary union and political union. Would such a situation immediately trigger a requirement for us to veto the next treaty, would we seek a comprehensive opt-out from it, or would the Government want to work with their partners and agree to some modest treaty changes that would affect the United Kingdom, in the spirit of “The Five Presidents’ Report”? Any such changes would be triggered after about 2017, so probably within this Parliament. Could we then look forward to a second referendum if we stayed in the European Union?
	Under the European Union Referendum Act 2015, there would need to be a referendum on any treaty changes made as a consequence of “The Five Presidents’ Report” and the clear desire of our partners to go along the route to political union.

Bill Cash: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see not only the White Paper that was produced a few days ago but the latest jewel in the crown from the Government, which is entitled “The process for withdrawing from the European Union”? It contains page after page of tendentious remarks, assertions and assumptions that cannot be substantiated. I can see the Minister for Europe wriggling around a bit on the Front Bench, because the bottom line is that he will not be able to answer these questions, but they will be tested before 23 June.

John Redwood: That is why, in my amiable way, I was suggesting that the Government might like to rethink their position on the timing of the referendum. Having seen that piece of work, I agree with my hon. Friend. I was frankly ashamed that such a document could come from the United Kingdom Government. It bore no relation to what the leave campaigns are saying about how we would like the Government to handle the British people’s decision if they decide to leave. It did not give any credence to the idea that we would be negotiating with friends and allies who would have as much interest in a successful British exit as we would, should that be the will of the British people.
	Ministers never seem to understand that the rest of Europe has far more exports to us at risk than we have to the rest of the European Union, because we are in massive deficit with those countries. I have had personal assurances from representatives of the German Government, for example, that they have no wish to see tariffs or barriers being placed in the way of their extremely profitable and successful trade with the United Kingdom. To issue a document implying that all sorts of obstacles would be put in the way of such trade over a 10-year period simply beggars belief.

Bill Cash: May I give my right hon. Friend an example? These documents contain scarcely any serious objective analysis from bodies such as the Office for National Statistics or the House of Commons Library, and their arguments are tendentious. I am sure he will remember, because this is at the forefront of his mind, that in current account transactions relating to imports, exports, goods and services, we run a deficit with the other 27 member states of about £58 billion a year, and that Germany runs a surplus in those same goods, services, imports and exports. If that is a single market, I’m a Dutchman.

John Redwood: I am sure that my hon. Friend is many fine things, but a Dutchman is clearly not one of them. He has, however, revealed an important fact, and it is the kind of fact that we would expect to see in a balanced document setting out the position on trade. I hope that the Minister will leave enough time in his urgent timetable to ensure that those sorts of important facts—

John Redwood: With references and proper statistical bases. Those important facts should be put in front of the British people. Indeed, the Minister would be wise to do that from his own point of view—perhaps I should not help him as much as I am apparently trying to do. The Government have been rumbled on this. The press and a lot of the public are saying that they want factual, mature and sensible information setting out the risks of staying in, the risks of leaving and what it would look like in either case, but that is not what we are getting.
	We have had another example in the past few days. We have been witnessing a long-term decline of the pound against the dollar for many months, because we are living through a period of dollar strength. In the past few days, when Brexit was in the news, we were told that the pound was going down because of fears about Brexit, whereas that was clearly not the case on other days when the pound had been going down. However, on those same days, the Government bond market had been going up. The prices of bonds had been rising and our creditworthiness was assessed as being better, but I did not hear the Government saying that the idea of Brexit was raising Britain’s credit standing. We could make that case just as easily as we could make the case that the fear of Brexit was leading to a fall in the pound.
	That is the kind of tendentious information that I hope the Minister will reconsider if he wishes to keep up the normally high standards of Government documentation and use impartial civil service advice in the right tradition, which we in the House of Commons would like to see. I can see that a few colleagues are not entirely persuaded that those high standards are always met, but I shall give the Government the benefit of the doubt. I have certainly seen many Government documents that achieve higher standards than the ones on this matter.
	I again urge the Minister to make sure that he leaves enough time in the action-packed timetable to produce high-quality, balanced information that includes the risks of staying in and the wild ride to political union that others have in mind, as well as what he sees as the risks of leaving. For instance, the Government should point out that if we stop paying the £10 billion of net contributions—money we do not get back—that will immediately improve the balance of payments by one fifth next year. Would that not be a marvellous advantage? I do not see it being pointed out in any of the current material in order to show some kind of balance.

Anne Main: My right hon. Friend is making a hugely powerful argument. The answer is quite simple: the Government do not want the facts in there—they do not want the British public to know. The British public will come to that conclusion, and it is not a good conclusion if we are to have a balanced debate on the referendum.

John Redwood: I fear that is right, but I also fear I am beginning to give the Government too much help. Obviously, I would like them to lose on this occasion, because I think we will be much better off if that happens. I will therefore vote with the Government, because 16 weeks is quite enough of “Project Fear” and of people misrepresenting a whole lot of things that are going on by saying, “These are the results of the fears of Brexit.” That will do the job I would like the Government to do and help the case I am trying to make, but the Government have a long way to go in the interests of good government and in meeting the legal requirements that they have placed on themselves to provide impartial information. I just trust that in the next few weeks they can lift their game.

Tom Brake: We have a referendum ahead of us, and I suggest we get on with that before looking at whether to make any changes to that Act.
	The Liberal Democrats support the referendum on 23 June. I have been in this House for some time now—longer than some Members but not as long as others—and it seems to me that, in this House and beyond, we have had a very full debate in recent general elections about the EU and whether we should or should not be members of it. As I said in an earlier intervention on the Minister, there is certainly no confusion in the minds of the electors in my constituency between the mayoral and Assembly elections taking place in May, and the EU referendum that will take place, presumably on 23 June. Clearly, it is more difficult for the political parties and the campaigners if one election follows on so relatively quickly after another.

Tom Brake: I am aware of that, and I suppose one consequence of devolution is that people in different places adopt different positions. Like many others, I am suspicious of the motives behind the Scottish National party’s position: is it about the need to delay the referendum for the reasons it sets out, or is it about increasing the chances that the UK might vote to come out of the EU, in order to facilitate the SNP’s campaign to hold a second referendum? In relation to splits within parties, there appears to be one within the SNP, as the First Minister of Scotland is clear that this should be a positive campaign, but what we have heard here today from SNP Members has been all about the procedure and not at all about the positive nature of what the EU campaign should be.

Patrick Grady: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, like the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats’ position is that if Scotland votes to stay in the EU and the rest of the UK votes to leave, they are happy to see Scotland forced to leave the EU against its will?

Tom Brake: I am confident that if we have a united front from the SNP campaigning positively on the matter, from the Labour party and from the Prime Minister—I am pleased to say that he has, after I requested it, come out forcefully behind the campaign in support of staying in—we will collectively win the campaign. I look forward to doing that.
	As I said, we need to get on with the campaign, which is actually about the peace, prosperity, opportunity and security that we derive from being a member of the EU; it is not about “Project Fear” at all. The Conservative party, or those on the Benches immediately in front of me, may refer frequently to “Project Fear”, but I must say that quite a degree of whitewash or “Project Status Quo” is coming from those on the Government Benches.

Bill Cash: I am so glad that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to “Project Status Quo”, because I am sure he will accept that almost nothing has changed, for example, on ever closer union, or in any word of any treaty or law in relation to the EU. Would he therefore be good enough simply to say that he agrees with us that proper, impartial information should be published, and that the current documents simply do not cut the mustard?

Tom Brake: What I will agree with the hon. Gentleman on is the fact that there is a “Project Status Quo”, but I think he has misunderstood the point I was making, which was that there are people on his side of the argument who would like us to come out of the EU and who claim repeatedly that the basis on which we would be able to trade with the EU would be unchanged. They say, “There is no change. It will be exactly the same. We will get exactly the same terms whether we are in or out.” That is why I referred to “Project Status Quo”.

Tom Brake: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman can read forward two, three, four, five, six or seven years to what the arrangement between the UK and the EU would be if the UK were to leave. I cannot do that, but clearly he is clairvoyant.
	One serious question I wish to put to the Minister is whether he is confident that the Electoral Commission and the police will have the resources and the tools they need to ensure that the rules on expenditure will be observed in the campaign. He will be aware of a recent exchange in which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—I warned him I was going to raise this point in the debate—said in an email:
	“It is open to the Vote Leave family to create separate legal entities each of which could spend £700k: Vote Leave will be able to spend as much money as is necessary to win the referendum.”
	I hope that the Minister will provide some clarification on that. My memory of being a Minister and being involved with the rules of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is that it is very clear that if organisations are working in concert—the Vote Leave family suggests that that is exactly what would happen—the total limit would be £700,000, and that to seek to go beyond that by some artificial creation of a number of identities would be a breach of the law. However the campaign is conducted, we need to know that all sides will treat it in a way that observes the law.

Peter Grant: May I start by referring Members, particularly the last speaker, to the comments made by the First Minister this morning? She made it perfectly clear that it is not her preferred outcome that Scotland should leave the Union simply to prevent ourselves from being dragged out of the European Union. She said that she wants the United Kingdom to deliver a resounding yes vote to the European Union. I cannot see that happening if the UK-based yes campaign continues to behave in this way.
	This afternoon, we have seen the reality behind the Government’s respect rhetoric. Despite the promises that we have been given time and again, and as recently as a few weeks ago in this Chamber, the views of the elected Governments of three of the four equal partners in this Union are being ignored and trampled underfoot by the fourth partner. That comes as no surprise to us in Scotland, because the Government made it perfectly clear that, regardless of what the sovereign people of Scotland say about our membership of the European Union, others can overturn that simply by sheer weight of numbers.
	One very interesting confession today is that the Labour party shares the Conservative party’s contempt for the sovereign will of the Scottish people. If the Labour branch office leader in Scotland had not conceded defeat in the Holyrood elections last week, I strongly suspect that she would have done so very quickly had she heard the comments of the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) just a few moments ago.
	The elected national leaders of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have all said that the democratic processes in their three countries are likely to be flawed if this statutory instrument is agreed tonight. In Northern Ireland, we even saw the Sinn Féin Deputy First Minister add his name to a letter from the Democratic Unionist party First Minister. Those are two politicians who, for a number of reasons, do not agree on very many things. How much wider a coalition of opposition to this proposal do the Government need to see before they accept that, in this case, sheer weight of numbers is not enough to crack an argument? They must listen, which is what they promised the devolved Governments that they would do.

Peter Grant: I do not think that a referendum date of 23 June gives adequate time for the complex issues to be considered. This is the time to be discussing not those issues, but the procedural motion before us so that we can decide on the date. I am up for a positive and, if necessary, heated discussion as to why it is in the interests of all of our nations to remain part of the European Union.
	In the interests of time, I will not repeat all the arguments that have been marshalled on the Opposition Benches and, sometimes, on the Government Benches against the proposal deliberately to overlap the referendum campaign with elections in which more than 20 million of our citizens will take part on the first Thursday in May. Let us look quickly at some of the consequences. As has been mentioned, 10 weeks before the referendum—in the middle of April—the Government’s response to the EU negotiations has to be published, including a statement, which we now know will say that the Government believe that people should vote to stay in the European Union. The Scottish Government will be in purdah for a full three weeks after that. Are the UK Government seriously suggesting that it is acceptable for the Prime Minister to issue an official document saying that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Union, while not allowing the Scottish Government to say that they agree because they are in purdah? Saying that they agree will inevitably be seen as seeking to influence the votes in the Scottish parliamentary elections away from the parties that will stand on an anti-European Union ticket—make no mistake about it.
	There used to be an agreement that the UK and Scottish Governments would fully respect one another’s purdah arrangements. If this statutory instrument is agreed today, that agreement is gone, and it may well be gone for ever. Any attempt to pretend that this Government respect the democratic legitimacy of the Scottish Government will go out the window with it.
	People will receive the UK Government’s document on the referendum at the same time, and possibly on exactly the same day, as they receive the polling cards or the postal vote applications for a completely different election. The problem is not just that the elections are held close together—in some ways, administratively, it is simpler if two polls are held on the same day, but it becomes more difficult if the nature of the question is different for those polls. In this case, every single part of the election administration process, which is immensely complicated and which our returning officers and our counting officers cannot afford to get wrong, will be happening twice, a few weeks apart. We will have the ridiculous situation of people being encouraged to register to vote in one election before they have to turn up at the polling station to vote in the other.
	The newly elected national Governments will find themselves back in purdah fewer than three weeks after the parliamentary elections. As has been pointed out, it is quite possible that, if there is a very keenly contested election in any of the three nations, the First Minister of one or of all three nations might not be elected until the Government are back into purdah. We then have a newly formed Government who are restricted in their ability to launch their legislative programme in case some of it is affected by the result of the referendum. That is not sheer speculation, but fact. For example, how can a new Scottish Government announce a five-year spending plan if they do not know whether European Union procurement rules will continue for over half of that five-year period? How can a Government put forward a legislative programme on such crucial areas as fisheries, agriculture, public procurement, investment and tourism if they do not know, and are not allowed to speculate on, whether they will still be a part of the European Union a couple of years later. If this is what the Government describe as being respectful, I shudder to think what contempt for the Scottish Government would look like. The Minister claimed that the EU referendum purdah is different from a parliamentary election purdah. Technically, it is, but so many subject matters will be covered by both that in fact, in practice, the elected Governments will be in purdah as regards a significant range of their devolved powers.
	The Government are trying to suggest that a referendum in September will not work, but if a major test of the success of any electoral process is public engagement and public participation, I have to remind the House that a September vote produced the most successful test of electoral opinion that any of these nations have ever seen, whether we measure it by the number of people who took part, the number of people who registered or the number of people who voted. I would much rather see 98% of people registering to vote and 85% of people voting than the low numbers we might get in a snap election.
	I am ready for the debate to begin. I honestly believe that a date of 23 June makes it more likely that the United Kingdom will vote to stay in. Despite that, I do not want to see the UK voting on a flawed referendum and in a flawed process. I would much rather see a referendum in which everybody participates and for that reason, it cannot be held as soon as 23 June.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 475, Noes 59.

Opposition Day

[Un-Allotted Half Day]

UK Steel Industry

[Relevant documents: First Report from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, on the UK Steel Industry: Government response to the crisis, HC 546, the Government response, HC 861, and oral evidence taken before the Welsh Affairs Committee on 10 February, on the steel industry in Wales, HC 767.]

Angela Eagle: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the crisis in the UK steel industry; calls on the Government to support tougher EU action to ensure a level playing field and prevent the dumping of Chinese steel, to support scrapping the lesser duty rule which prevents higher tariffs being imposed that reflect the actual margin of dumping and to examine the implications of granting China Market Economy Status for the EU’s ability to tackle unfair trade; and further calls on the Government to publish a full industrial strategy which includes a procurement policy which commits to using British steel wherever possible for publicly-funded infrastructure projects and which supports industrial supply chains across the UK.
	Britain’s steel industry is in crisis, and despite the warning signs flashing red, the Tories have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to come up with any kind of response. So far, it has been far too little and far too late. More than 5,000 UK steel jobs have been lost over the past 12 months. Redcar has been abandoned, the blast furnace and the coke ovens destroyed by this Government’s shameful complacency and inaction. Tata Steel has announced the loss of 1,050 jobs this year alone, and there are worrying signs that the entire industry in the UK is hanging by a thread.
	This is a vital foundation industry for the UK which, after all, was the world’s first industrial nation. Our steel communities are looking to Parliament to support them in their hour of need and we must not let them down. Steel production is worth £9.5 billion to our economy, £5 billion of that in exports, at a time when we have a deteriorating trade deficit.

Angela Eagle: I will be the first to work with Government Members, and I hope that by the time we have listened to the Business Secretary’s reply we will have something that we can all cheer.
	The British Chambers of Commerce recently found that export growth continued to slow at the end of 2015, with manufacturers struggling in particular. In the words of a former Conservative Trade Minister, the Government’s own export target is “a big stretch”. The Government have obviously been asleep at the wheel. Ahead of the Budget next month, the Government must acknowledge that on their watch domestic structural weaknesses in the UK economy have been allowed to persist and that they are now in danger of holding Britain back.

Stephen Doughty: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have also been asleep at the wheel when it comes to the crucial issue of procurement? Will she join me in commending the Daily Mirror for its Save Our Steel campaign, which has been shining a light on defence procurement, in particular, and found that Swedish steel is being used in the Navy’s newest warships?

Angela Eagle: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s observations and share his surprise that Swedish steel is being used in Ministry of Defence contracts in quite that way. I note that it appears to be a Conservative donor company that was doing that work. I join him in commending the Daily Mirror for its fantastic Save Our Steel campaign, which has highlighted the very real effects of the current crisis on steel communities up and down the country. Long may it continue to help us campaign to save this vital industry.
	In the light of all that, why has the Government’s response to the steel crisis been so complacent and ineffective to date? Perhaps it is because we have a Business Secretary who is ideologically indisposed to taking any worthwhile action as he does not actually believe in the concept of Government action at all. Perhaps it is because we have a Business Secretary who has read far too much Ayn Rand and thinks that markets should somehow just be left to look after themselves. Perhaps it is because we have a Business Secretary who will not let the phrase “industrial strategy” even pass his lips.

Angela Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. I think that in this debate Opposition Members will want to explore the gap between the Government’s rhetoric and the reality of their actions, because all too often we find that the gap is far too wide.

Madeleine Moon: Today in Defence Questions it was said that British steel companies had not tendered for defence contracts—for example, for the building of frigates. If it is unattractive for British companies to tender, is it not important that the Government explore what is happening in our contracting? There is a problem there—a gap between what is said and reality—that should be explored.

Angela Eagle: The Government should certainly be leaving no stone unturned in encouraging UK steel to tender for any contract, especially as they boast about changing the procurement rules—in my experience, one has to do a lot more than that to make a real difference.

Angela Eagle: Okay, but just because I am intrigued about the hon. Gentleman’s rugby-playing days.

Mark Pritchard: I thank the hon. Lady, who is being generous in giving way—I believe in mixed rugby teams, so she is welcome on the pitch anytime. It so happens that 26 British companies were asked to tender for the offshore patrol vessels to which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) referred, but only one did, so only 20% of the steel for those vessels will be British. Surely she agrees that it is not for the Government, or indeed for the Opposition, to promote and market individual steel companies, whether British or not; it is for those companies to market themselves, and it is for the Government to set the framework in which they can do the business.

Angela Eagle: I am just getting the idea of a mixed rugby team out of my mind so that I can address the hon. Gentleman’s point. I think that it rather makes the point that the Government need to do more than just change technical criteria. They need to take a root-and-branch look at what is actually happening in our steel industry, and an industrial strategy would assist them in doing that. We need to do what we can to ensure that any blockages are removed so that we can give our steel communities the best chance to take maximum advantage of the procurement opportunities available in this country.

Andy McDonald: On investment in steel, does my hon. Friend recognise that there is an opportunity to invest in a catapult centre in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley)? That would be a major investment that would take steel forward. That opportunity ought to be embraced, but it is being dismissed out of hand—[Interruption.] The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise says from a sedentary position that it is not, so I am glad that she is embracing the concept.

Mark Spencer: I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but I hope she will recognise that the Government have to work within the European Union’s state aid rules.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I apologise for my voice—I shall have to whisper.
	I have been on the doorstep with steelworkers in my constituency, and, in a spirit of working across these Benches, all I want to be able to say to them is that the Minister has been to Brussels and demanded the highest possible tariffs—the sort of tariffs the Americans have. Then I can say that, in line with the proposals being put forward by the Welsh Government, we are doing everything we can to make sure we have a steel industry in this country—this year, in five years, in 10 years and in 50 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do not have those tariffs, we risk losing the steel industry?

Angela Eagle: I am coming to that later in my remarks, but my hon. Friend is exactly right: all energy-intensive industries are affected, and ceramics is one of them.
	If they are accurate, I welcome the media reports from today’s European Union Competitiveness Council, which appears to have agreed that the Commission should accelerate anti-dumping action. I look forward to much more detail from the Secretary of State when he responds to the debate on what that will mean in practice. Until then, we must judge the Government on their actions to date.
	Our motion calls on the Government to stop blocking reform of EU trade defence instruments, which would enable defensive tariffs to be imposed much more quickly and at a level that would actually prevent imports of unfairly traded steel products from China. The Government should support the scrapping of the lesser duty rule, which is preventing tariffs from being set at a level that will actually deal with the problem. After months of agitation and a massive increase in Chinese imports, especially to the UK, the European Union has finally set its tariff on a particular product—Chinese rebar—between 9.2% and 13%. Meanwhile, the USA has introduced defensive tariffs of 66%, and they were operating 45 days after the start of its investigation. To work, tariffs have to be high enough to deal with the problem—the EU tariffs are not.
	It is important to make it crystal clear that we are objecting to blatant and unfair dumping, not to free trade, which the Opposition support.

Richard Fuller: I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying, but does she not feel the chill wind of the 1930s, which saw the infringement of free trade as people eagerly moved to impose tariffs? Over the last 10 years, China’s share of world trade in steel has grown from 30% to more than 50%, so whatever the tariff, there will be further calls for higher tariffs, with consequential disadvantages for all.

Angela Eagle: I was trying to make it very clear that we are talking about unfair trade—dumping. We are not talking about fair trade.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is exactly right: we have to distinguish between free trade, fair trade and unfair trade, and what we face with Chinese steel imports is clearly unfair. Dumping is unfair, and it is threatening the very existence of the UK steel industry. Everyone in the House knows that once steel facilities have gone, they cannot easily be put back. We have to protect our industry’s capacity to exist, and perhaps to do better in future, when world conditions have changed. If we do not bear that in mind, we will lose the lot, and we will regret it.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Lady will find that there is a lot of understanding across the House of the point she makes. My point is just that, over the past 20 or 30 years, we have become reliant on China producing many things, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) mentioned ceramics. My concern—perhaps the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) can address this—is about where we make the distinction in terms of the tariffs we impose. Does she not have the slightest concern that a series of such issues may come up in sector after sector because of the growing reliance over the last few years on Chinese exports?

Mark Tami: Shotton steelworks, which produces “galv” and coated products, relies on Port Talbot for its supply of steel. Although Shotton is a profitable plant, if Port Talbot were to go, it would not be easy to find a good-quality supplier of steel at the drop of a hat.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that, in some places in Europe, there may exist an industrial strategy, and we could do with one in this country.
	Far from fighting for the UK’s interests, as they would have us believe they are doing, the Government are actually a leading part of a group of EU countries that have moved to block reform of the lesser duty rule. Let us look at the record to date. The European Commission proposed strengthening trade defence instruments in April 2013 to protect Europe from Chinese dumping. That was endorsed by the European Parliament in February 2014. It was then blocked in the Trade Council in November 2014. It was the UK Government who successfully assembled a group of 15 other EU countries to oppose that crucial reform. The Government objected primarily to the abolition of the lesser duty rule and to giving the Commission the ability to initiate anti-dumping proceedings on its own. Perhaps the Business Secretary will let us know whether today’s apparent agreement changes that stance? If it did, that would be most welcome, and it would certainly be a departure from the recent past.
	When the Business Secretary was asked, in evidence to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee recently, about the Government’s blocking of reform, he said:
	“If duties are applied that are disproportionate, it would have an impact, in Britain and elsewhere”.
	However, Chinese dumping is having a devastating impact in Britain now. We do not need disproportionate tariffs; we need tariffs that will be effective and duties that will prevent the damage caused by illegal dumping. The Government should be arguing for such duties, not conniving with 15 other EU countries to block them.
	On granting market economy status to China as part of its ongoing acceptance into the World Trade Organisation, the Chinese Government regard this as an automatic thing, but it certainly should not be. In fact, as many in this House will know, this status is granted only when the economic conditions in the country concerned have developed in such a way that it can be shown that prices and costs are genuine and can therefore be used to determine trade defence disputes. China currently meets only one of the five criteria required for this status to be granted, and yet the UK Government support granting market economy status to China as early as the end of this year.
	Why is this? We already know that the Chancellor continues to be almost embarrassingly desperate to be China’s new best friend, but he must not pursue his infatuation so far that it excuses its unfair trade practices. Granting market economy status to China in the absence of important safeguards would significantly diminish the capacity of the EU to guard against Chinese dumping, which has the potential to destroy the UK steel industry, so it must not be granted until the criteria are objectively met. Will the Secretary of State tell us more about why the Government appear to have made their mind up already on this important issue in advance of the forthcoming assessment by the EU Commission? Surely they are not so intent on cosying up to China that they have left all judgment behind.
	The Opposition motion calls on the Government to publish a full industrial strategy that is designed to support and grow our manufacturing sector, not just stand by as it is threatened by unfair competition. This should include a proactive procurement policy committed to using British steel wherever possible for publicly funded infrastructure projects and supporting industrial supply chains across the UK. Nothing less will do. In the forthcoming Budget, Labour would support the Government doing more on business rates and exempting new industrial equipment. An industrial strategy must be forward-looking and support our wider industrial base and its supply chains. That is why Labour would also support the Government in going further to develop a materials catapult to drive early-stage investment in this crucial area—an idea that has support from industry and business organisations such as the CBI. Labour Members certainly support it, and I hope that come the Budget we will hear from the Government that they support it too.
	The Government are always keen on asserting that they have changed the procurement rules as one of the five steel industry asks that the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise blithely asserted during the recent urgent question on 18 January had all somehow been delivered. However, these new rules do not seem to be having any impact on actual outcomes. There is no sign that these modest technical changes are making any difference in the awarding of Government contracts to help our domestic industry. Perhaps that is because the new guidance merely states that steel requirements should be “openly advertised” to allow UK firms to compete. Britain’s steel industry needs a real champion in Government, but the Minister excuses the omission of British steel in projects like Hinkley Point C by claiming wrongly that UK steel does “not have this capacity”. I am beginning to worry about her connection with reality, especially after her appearance on “Pienaar’s Politics” yesterday when she claimed that there is no Tory infighting over the European Union and denied that the Prime Minister had attacked the Mayor of London in a speech last week. I do not know which planet she is on, but it is clearly not the same one that the rest of us inhabit.
	The Conservatives have left our economy insufficiently resilient to global threats and not in a high enough state of readiness to seize on future opportunities. If they are to lay solid foundations for our future prosperity as a nation, they have to support our foundation industries. Decisions taken now will chart our economic fortunes for the decades to come. The UK steel industry does not need warm words from this Government: it needs effective action. Our steel communities need it, our economy needs it, and Labour Members demand it.

Sajid Javid: There is no doubt that the past few months have been absolutely devastating for Britain’s steel industry and, more importantly, for the skilled, dedicated people who work in it. It is also clear that the global steel industry is facing an unprecedented set of challenges with multiple factors beyond the control of any one national industry or Government.
	The facts are familiar, but they bear repeating. Around the world, production of steel is 30% higher than demand. In China alone, excess steel capacity is 25 times the UK’s entire annual production. Demand here in Europe has yet to return to pre-crash levels. As a result, the international price of steel has halved over the past 18 months, and the impact on Britain’s steelworkers has been all too clear. I have travelled to Redcar and to Port Talbot and seen for myself the challenges the situation has created, and the good work being done on the ground to help the communities cope.
	Labour Members want us to demand the removal of the lesser duty rule so that the EU can impose tariffs on all Chinese steel. They apparently fail to recognise that the lesser duty rule does not prevent the imposition of tariffs, nor is it a bar to effective action against unfair trading: it simply ensures that duties are set at a level that removes the harm caused by dumping, and no higher.

Nicholas Dakin: When the Secretary of State wrote to the Commission and said that it
	“should make full and timely use of the full range of EU trade policy instruments to tackle unfair trade, including anti subsidy measures, to ensure a global level playing field”,
	did he mean that he was going to take action on behalf of our steel industry?

Mark Spencer: Before my right hon. Friend makes any more progress, it is worth putting on the record the £50 million of support that he and the Minister have already put in place. Will he bring us up to speed on where the negotiations with the EU stand and what sort of timescale he is looking at?

Stephen Doughty: The Secretary of State specifically mentioned rebar. As he knows, that is a major product produced by Celsa in my constituency. It is a very high-quality product that has been used in Crossrail and many other projects. Does he expect that tariffs on rebar, specifically, will be higher against the unfairly traded Chinese steel—yes or no?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I realise that there will be a negotiation process. As somebody who has been involved in European negotiations in a different sphere, I know that it is perfectly within the Secretary of State’s gift to tell us what the UK’s negotiating position is. What should the tariffs on the different products be, and when is he arguing for them to be imposed?

Mark Tami: Does the Secretary of State not understand that the clock is ticking and the industry does not have long left? Millions of pounds are being lost each day and it is no good him standing there saying, “Well, I’ve said this and that about next week and the week after.” There may not be a week after.

Anna Turley: If Tata Steel, UK Steel—the umbrella body—and the Community union are all calling for the Government to take action on the lesser duty rule, surely the Secretary of State can see that it is in his gift to give that to the steel industry, which is crying out in desperation for his help.

Richard Fuller: rose—

Angela Eagle: We are not calling for protectionism; we are calling for tariffs that prevent unfair trade. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about protectionism, it is important that he distinguishes between dumped and unfairly traded products—which must have high tariffs so that they can be blocked before they destroy our industry—and fairly traded products. We agree with him. We are not against free and fair trade.

Andrew Percy: There is nothing more cruel to steelworkers, many thousands of whom I am proud to represent, than suggesting that all of the solutions to this crisis are in the hands of the British Government. For the record again, will the Secretary of State make it absolutely clear whether the British Government can unilaterally impose the tariffs? If not, will he confirm that it is for the European Union to make that decision? On top of that, is he pushing the EU for higher tariffs than those that have been imposed? It is simple—that is what steelworkers want to hear.

Sajid Javid: I can confirm all that to my hon. Friend, who makes his point very well. The rules are applied to all members of the European Union. The tariffs are set after an evidence-gathering process by the EU Trade Commissioner. Clearly, we all want them to be based on evidence so that it can be used to create the level playing field that we all want. My hon. Friend is correct to say that no single country can choose to change a tariff; we must work collectively through the EU rules.
	Removing the lesser duty rule would have an impact. We want to address the impact of unfair trade without imposing disproportionate costs on the wider economy. We want to create that level playing field rather than a protectionist barrier. As I have already said—I am happy to say it again—where the evidence suggests it, I want to see the highest appropriate duties imposed. On rebar, which the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) mentioned earlier, the UK industry is asking for tariffs of 20% to 30%. We support that and think that the evidence backs it, but I will never call for any action that could damage British business and hurt British consumers.
	The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) called for an examination of the implications of granting market economy status to China. The Commission has not yet published its proposals, but, even if China is granted market economy status, the EU will still be able to take action on unfair trade practices and impose anti-dumping measures. After all, Russia has market economy status, and the EU has taken anti-dumping measures against Russia. Nor would market economy status affect the EU’s ability to tackle Chinese subsidies through anti-subsidy actions. In fact, the Commission has said that it wants to make it easier to tackle subsidies through trade defence measures.
	It is clear that the Commission can do more within the existing rules, and I am doing everything I can to make sure it does so. That is why the UK has led the way in calling for more effective action. It was the UK that demanded and secured an extraordinary meeting of the Competitiveness Council to agree a European-wide approach to the crisis. It was also the UK that lobbied for an investigation into rebar dumping. We have been pressing the Commission to speed up its investigations into dumping so that appropriate steps can be taken as soon as possible. We have written to the Commission with specific proposals. We have voted to take action on seamless pipes and tubes, wire rod and cold rolled products. We have supported the Commission’s investigations into hot rolled flat products, and just last week I personally raised the issue with China’s Commerce Minister when he was in the United Kingdom.

Tom Blenkinsop: If what the Secretary of State says is true, why does the director general of Eurofer, Axel Eggart, state:
	“By blocking the lifting of the Lesser-Duty-Rule, these Member States”—
	including the UK—
	“deliberately deprive the European steel sector of the chance to receive effective and legitimate remedy against massive dumping”?
	Why does the Secretary of State think that the representative of the entire steel industry in the European Union says that?

Sajid Javid: I think I have already answered that question. We have been working closely with the industry to deliver as much support as possible. At October’s steel summit, the industry had five asks of the Government. Today, I am pleased to say that we have already delivered on four of them. Let me take this opportunity to thank my colleagues the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, and the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury for their unstinting work.

Stephen Doughty: It is interesting to hear what the Secretary of State is saying about the procurement guidance being given to Departments. The Ministry of Defence has told me in answer to a written question that
	“the Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not hold a complete, centralised record of steel procurement for projects and equipment, either in terms of quantity or country of origin”.
	Can the Minister explain why that is, and does he think that it is satisfactory? How will we ensure that Departments meet the procurement guidelines that he has set out for them if the MOD is not even keeping records? I am not talking about specific projects, but it needs to keep records otherwise we cannot tell whether it is doing what he says it should be doing.

Sajid Javid: I know the hon. Lady feels passionately about the matter, but it is important to get the facts right. On rebar, the European Commission has so far come up with tariffs of between 9% and 13%. The industry is asking for 20% to 30%, and we support that. I hope she will also support that.
	The fifth and final ask was lower business rates. A Treasury review of those is ongoing, and I hope that it will be concluded ahead of next month’s Budget.

Sajid Javid: I think those numbers are right. Well over 90% of the steel was British, and that is exactly what we want to see. National Rail is using 98% British steel in major infrastructure projects, and more than 95% of the products used in the Crossrail project—the largest infrastructure project in Europe—are British. That is exactly what we all want to see.

Sajid Javid: That is why we need to use whatever evidence is available. That means working closely with the industry, listening to it and taking note of its evidence. If the industry is saying that the right level is 20% to 30%, it is worth listening to that.
	We have provided support packages worth up to £90 million for communities affected by plant closures in Scunthorpe, Redcar and Rotherham. The help on offer includes retraining, support for local companies that want to take on former steelworkers, and emergency help for workers who find themselves in a financial crisis. Earlier this month, Lord Heseltine announced the creation of an interim body for managing the former SSI site in Redcar, to ensure that it reaches its full potential. Lord Heseltine is also conducting a review of inward investment in the Tees valley, as well as looking at how to enhance education, employment and skills in the area.
	As for the plants that are still operating, we continue to work with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and with individual companies on their specific needs. For example, we have repeatedly made it clear that we want the blast furnaces to carry on at Port Talbot, and we are working with Tata and the Welsh Assembly Government to help to make that happen. Although this remains an uncertain time, it is encouraging that Tata Steel Europe has announced that Greybull Capital is its preferred bidder for the purchase of the Tata long products business. That is a positive step. The negotiations are a matter for the companies involved, but we remain in regular contact with Tata about its future plans. If it is successful, the sale is likely to involve some element of state financial support, on commercial terms, for the new owner.
	We have set up a joint Government and industry steel council to take remaining actions forward and to work through the conclusions of an independent study into the competitiveness of the UK steel sector. I will co-chair the first meeting of the steel council on Wednesday.

Sajid Javid: I fully understand why my hon. Friend has asked about that, but the discussions are commercially sensitive at this point. I am happy to reassure him that we are in deep discussions with Greybull, Tata and others, and that where we are able to help by providing support on commercial terms, we most certainly will do so.
	The hon. Member for Wallasey has called for us to offer greater support to manufacturing supply chains across the UK. The Government are absolutely committed to British manufacturing. That is why we are investing in infrastructure across the country, and that is why, for example, we are totally committed to building four Successor submarines for our nuclear deterrent. Building the Trident replacement will secure our nation and secure thousands of skilled manufacturing jobs. Sadly, it was no surprise to see the Leader of the Opposition leading a demonstration against it this Saturday. Senior members of the GMB union called that
	“armchair generals playing student politics”.
	The crisis facing the British and European steel industry is grave indeed, but the charge that this Government are not doing all we can simply does not stick. We cannot simply increase the global price of steel or reduce the level of production in other countries.

Jonathan Edwards: rose—

Sajid Javid: If the Welsh Government had listened to the leader of the Conservative party, they would have been in a far better position to help the steel industry locally.
	There are things we simply cannot do—we cannot simply increase the global price of steel or reduce the level of production in other countries—but we have done everything possible and we will continue to do so as long as such action is needed. We will leave no one behind in this one nation.

Marion Fellows: When I was preparing for today’s debate, I wondered how I could speak on this or similar motions without repetition, deviation or hesitation, which are the famous rules of Radio 4’s “Just a Minute” programme. I will break all those rules, because I will use repetition and—not too much—deviation, while the only hesitation will be when I struggle to find words to explain what the Government say they are doing to help save the UK steel industry.
	Since I attended the UK steel summit in Rotherham on 16 October, along with many other Members currently in the Chamber, in excess of 6,000 jobs have been lost across the UK. Job losses at Dalzell plate mill in my constituency and at Clydebridge in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) are included in that number. I will come on to describe how job losses and effective Government action differ across the UK.
	Community the union has called for the UK Government to take action now, and has asked them
	“to do everything in their power to safeguard the future of this vital strategic, foundation industry of fundamental importance to UK manufacturing and industrial supply chains.”
	Along with UK Steel and Eurofer, Community has challenged the Government to come out positively for scrapping the lesser duty rule, which inhibits the rate of duty that can be imposed on Chinese dumped steel. It is hypocritical in the extreme for this Government to vote for anti-dumping measures on the one hand and to fight to retain the lesser duty rule on the other.
	The Government support market economy status for the Chinese. Where is the sense in that? It is another example of doublespeak. Yes, the Prime Minister spoke to the Chinese about the dumping of steel, but it seems to have been a rather one-sided conversation. We have no proof that the Chinese even listened, as there has been no diminution in the problem. It is no secret that the Government need Chinese money to build nuclear power stations. Is that uppermost in their mind? It is time they put UK manufacturing interests first. The Chancellor has already trailed that further austerity is coming down the track, and where did he choose to make that announcement? Shanghai.
	When pushed, the Government have pointed to the five asks put forward at the UK steel summit. They have made progress on some of them—they have managed to get agreement from Europe to implement the energy-intensive industries package ahead of April 2016, but that is of very limited help during the current financial year.
	As far as anti-dumping measures are concerned, I have already explained that the Government are in two minds about that, according to industry leaders. There has been no movement on competitive business rates for larger manufacturers and, given the Chancellor’s announcement about further austerity measures, it is difficult to see how and when that will happen. There has been movement on gold-plating EU regulations, but that has so far had minimal effect. Progress has been made on procurement guidelines, but that will affect future infrastructure projects and is not helping the UK steel industry at present. We are in dire times.

Marion Fellows: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to excuse me if I move on? That old canard has been dealt with in previous debates on steel. The Scottish Government are now moving on. [Interruption.] I will move on with my speech, if the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise will stop chuntering from a sedentary position—I think I have that wording correct.
	The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy laid the snappily titled statutory instrument 2016 No. 120, Rating and Valuation, the Non-Domestic Rates (Steel Sites) (Scotland)
	Regulations 2016, on 24 February, and they will come into force on 1 April and grant rates relief to a new operator taking over Scottish plants.
	There have also been discussions with the chief assessor in relation to the 2017 revaluation of rates in Scotland, to look at special measures for steel plants. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has been in touch with the present owners regarding any work that needs to be done in relation to the sites, and Tata has been working closely with Scottish Enterprise to find schemes and other ways to reduce running costs, which will also help any new owner. At each meeting of the taskforce, there is a positive energy and a commitment to retaining the plants for Scotland’s economic future.
	On 15 February, the Scottish Government launched their paper, “A Manufacturing Future for Scotland”, which lays out their vision for the Scottish manufacturing sector. I recommend it; it is a great read. It is a positive, forward-looking document that shows the Scottish Government’s commitment to manufacturing. It states:
	“The Action Plan is based on a commitment to raising productivity through increased investment and innovation”.
	It is a road map to success for Scottish industry. As part of the action plan, the Scottish Government have established a joint centre of excellence for manufacturing and skills academy.
	The Scottish Government have shown what is severely lacking here at Westminster: a strong political will to help the steel sector and other manufacturing industries boost inclusive growth and exports. The UK Government are so busy with their hands-off approach to vital foundation industries that their mantra of the UK being a world player is at serious risk. This is a country that wants to strut the world stage, but if it is not careful, it will lag so far behind in manufacturing that it will not be able to manufacture the necessities its citizens need.
	I ask the Government to look seriously at the mixed messages they are sending out, to get behind the scrapping of the lesser duty rule, to steer away from giving China market economy status and to start investing in foundation industries in the UK. We need to spend more on industry and less on bailing out bankers. In closing, may I just say that another Radio 4 comedy programme comes to mind when I think of the Government’s policies on steel and manufacturing? It is my favourite programme.

Iain Wright: “I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue”.

Marion Fellows: Quite right: “I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue”. My favourite game is “One song to the tune of another”. I ask the Government to stop indulging in that. They should come out strongly for manufacturing industries, be unequivocal in the EU, get rid of the lesser duty rule, prevent dumping by China and vote against giving China market economy status, which would truly spell the death knell for UK steel.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Huw Merriman: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate on the UK steel industry.
	I would be the first to acknowledge that the constituency of Bexhill and Battle has not, to the best of my knowledge, made a large contribution to the steel industry. However, as my name suggests, my father and those who came before him hailed from south Wales, where the industry has always loomed large. It was because of my background that I put in to speak and, in so doing, I wish to express my support for an industry that the Prime Minister recently referred to as “vital”. It is with sadness that I have watched events unfold in Redcar, Scunthorpe, Scotland and south Wales. In parts of the country that rely on a specific industry, the impact is felt not just by those who are directly employed, but by the many people whose jobs and incomes rely on it indirectly.

Huw Merriman: I accept that point. This issue extends to the whole of the UK, including the constituency that I serve.
	The steel industry has experienced challenges that are, as the Financial Times put it recently, akin to a perfect storm. First, since 2000, there has been massive growth in the volume of steel that is produced internationally, particularly by China. Secondly, the recent slowing of global growth, particularly in China, has meant that steel production has outstripped consumption. Thirdly, the surplus steel has been exported, again largely from China, which has pushed the price down for British producers. There is a similar theme in other sectors, such as our oil industry. Accordingly, British steel is being sold at a much reduced price, and because British industry has higher overheads, that has hit our steel industry hard.
	That leads us to the question of what the Government can do in the face of global market events. I am pleased that they have voiced their support for the industry and are already working on the action requested in the motion in the following ways. First, they are pressing with some success, as we have heard today, for more vigorous anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures across the EU to prevent Chinese firms from selling steel at sub-market rates across Europe.
	Secondly, the Government are taking the lead in public procurement to ensure that, where possible within EU state aid rules, the Government buy British steel. To that end, I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State mention that public procurement contracts can take into consideration not just the specific costs but the wider socioeconomic benefits of buying British steel.
	Thirdly, the Government are encouraging British private industry, such as our burgeoning auto trade, to buy British. Fourthly, they are assessing the tax and regulatory costs and what the industry can do to drive up its competitiveness. The Government have taken a lead in doing that with the industry.
	Finally, the Government are driving discussions in the European Council on taking similar action at EU level, as the EU is the second largest producer of steel globally, albeit at about 25% of total Chinese production. I hope that those levers, which the Government and industry are pulling, will reach fruition and assist our steel producers and those who work in the industry.
	I would like to respond to some of the points that have emanated from the Opposition Benches. I fully understand why they have been made but, being a Government Member, it would be remiss of me not to comment on them. It is not realistic for the Government to step in and effectively underpin the steel price by pumping money into the industry, for two obvious reasons. First, EU state aid rules mean that the UK is largely prohibited from providing financial assistance that could distort prices between producers within the EU.

Huw Merriman: I will not, because I am coming to a conclusion.
	Secondly, at a time when our health service is having to find £22 billion of efficiencies in addition to the £10 billion that the Government are pumping in, we have difficult choices to make on behalf of the country about where Government spending goes.
	I welcome the many initiatives that the Government have launched, which meet many of the requests in the motion. I hope that they will support our steel industry through this time of market turbulence.

Iain Wright: The UK steel industry should be identified as a significant strategic sector of the British economy to help to secure our manufacturing strength and to retain the capability and capacity within the supply chain for our vital and productive industrial sectors such as aerospace, automotives and construction.
	Given the industry’s importance and the crisis in recent months, with one in six jobs lost since the autumn, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee made this issue the topic of our first report of the Parliament. We found that the Government were not sufficiently alert to the warning bells being sounded by the UK steel industry. Although the Government had identified the sector as vital, Whitehall did not have effective warning systems in place. The loss of job, skills and capacity in this vital industry is nothing short of a national tragedy. That has spanned more than 40 years, but on their watch, this Government should have been much more proactive in considering the retention of the existing steel capability and employment levels, rather than redeploying hard-working and skilled people to alternative jobs that are often less productive and lower earning, and losing forever these key industrial assets.
	The Select Committee also found that UK Governments needed to do more at an EU level to prevent the dumping of Chinese steel—an issue that has rightly been mentioned throughout the debate and that is explicitly mentioned in the motion. It is of central importance and I shall return to it later.
	At the steel summit in October, industry made five reasonable policy requests on matters such as energy costs, business rates, procurement, anti-dumping measures, and the industrial emissions directive. In the letter to me that accompanied the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report, the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise stated:
	“We have delivered on four of the five asks of UK steel and on Business rates we await the conclusions of the Chancellor’s review”.
	In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said virtually the same thing. In the body of the Government response to our report, the Government said that it has been
	“unceasing in its efforts to deliver”
	on those five asks, and pledged to
	“continue to do all it can in the coming weeks and months to ensure a healthy and sustainable future for UK steel.”
	Those are powerful words and phrases, yet I regret that they are untrue, and it is wrong—disingenuous, even—to say that the Government have delivered on four out of five asks.
	For example, on procurement it is true and very welcome that the Government have changed the guidelines to allow for more local content. However—unless the Minister can correct me—no orders have yet been received in steel plants on the back of that change to the guidelines, and they also fail to include so-called publicly enabled procurement projects. That means that Hinkley Point, one of the largest construction projects that this country has ever seen, which requires more than 200,000 tonnes of steel, more than 600,000 embedment plates, and large quantities of structural steelwork, is not subject to the guidelines; and nor is the massive rolling stock programme. Will the Minister outline any new orders won on the back of those changes? Will she commit to looking at whether publicly enabled procurement projects can be considered within those guidelines?
	The biggest issue regarding not only the viability of the UK steel industry but the survival of the entire global steel industry is that of cheap Chinese steel being unleashed on the rest of the world. The Committee’s report acknowledged that the scale of the problem should not be underestimated. We fully accept that even if the Government were able to deliver immediately and in full on all the other asks, the future of the UK steel industry would remain in doubt unless effective action at an international level to withstand the onslaught of cheap Chinese steel could be taken.
	China has far too much supply in the face of sharply shrinking domestic demand. Total Chinese steel production is 1.17 billion tonnes, which is more than double that of the four next largest producers—Japan, India, the US and Russia—combined. Chinese surplus capacity in steelmaking is bigger than the entire steel production of the United States, Germany and Japan combined. Despite the rhetoric of Chinese leaders about reducing surplus capacity, Chinese steel production increased last year.
	Why would China want to reduce steel output? The closure of local steel mills will throw something like 400,000 steelmakers out of work, putting at risk social order and the ability of the Chinese party apparatus to control matters. Steel mills in China are concerned that they will lose market share and have to spend increased capital to start production again. It is far easier to keep operations going now. Chinese banks are urging mills to keep going so that they do not have to make provision for bad loans. Therefore, when considered in terms of the geopolitical situation and the domestic environment, the risk to the Chinese political, social and banking systems as a result of reducing steel capacity means that it is naive of policymakers in the west to believe that the Chinese will allow it to happen willingly. It is therefore imperative that policymakers in the west undertake a concerted and co-ordinated effort to withstand this illegal Chinese dumping. This is not protectionism. The steel market does not have effective competition, and it is being distorted to the point of destruction by a powerful monopolistic power that is immune to the normal pressures of market forces.

Barry Sheerman: Some of us want a proper relationship with the Chinese economy and concede that partnership in some things is very valuable. However, this is about the power of the Chinese economy, and even though my constituency does not depend on British steel, our leading agricultural chemical companies in the world, such as Syngenta, are being taken over—overnight it seems—by a Chinese conglomerate that is really the Chinese Government strategically plotting a course worldwide.

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend is right, and that point was mentioned earlier in the debate. This is about commodities in general, not just steel, and the enormous surplus capacity in other things such as phosphates is incredibly important. It is therefore vital that we have tougher EU action to ensure a level playing field, support scrapping the lesser duty rule, and carefully consider China’s market economic status. Given the Government’s rhetoric that they will be “unceasing” in their efforts and
	“continue to do all it can”
	to safeguard UK steel, those steps are the very least one could expect.
	The Committee’s report acknowledged the Minister’s success in changing the UK’s stance to vote in favour of the extension on wire rod, but lifting the lesser duty rule has been ruled out by the Government. In Committee earlier this month, the Secretary of State will recall that I asked whether he would change the UK Government’s position within the Commission on the lesser duty rule, to safeguard the British steel industry as much as possible. He replied that he would not, and he has repeated that tonight, stating that he needs to consider the “impact overall” on British industry and British jobs, particularly in terms of duties imposed.
	Nobody would want a protectionist arms race to escalate throughout the economy, but the Minister and the Secretary of State must surely realise that the British steel industry—alongside many other European steel producers—faces an existential threat that is based on a grossly distorted and failing market. This is not about imposing additional duties or tariffs elsewhere on British manufacturing; it is a request, a plea, for a co-ordinated response. The UK steel industry is on its knees. This proud sector, which should be powering the future of British manufacturing, is pleading with the Government to help and to make sure that we have a sustainable future for the steel industry in this country.

Richard Fuller: It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee who made a well informed contribution, and it is a privilege to serve on that Committee with him. I commend the hon. Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and many other Members across the House whose employees or constituents are affected directly or indirectly by the tremendous challenges faced by the steel industry. Their constituents can know that their Members of Parliament are doing the best they can to get the best deal for their constituents, and they are doing it in the most effective way in Parliament. They are a tribute to their constituents.
	The steel industry is undoubtedly facing massive changes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned, the growth of the Chinese steel industry—initially to serve the international market but over the last decade to serve its own domestic market—has created tremendous challenges for the rest of the world economy at a time of reduced demand both in China and internationally. It is fair to say that mistakes were made by the coalition Government and the preceding Labour Government in preparing the steel industry for those changes.
	For example, if Members read about energy prices on page 12 of the Select Committee report, they will see that the big change in energy prices for the United Kingdom relative to our European competitors came under the Labour Government in 2005-06. In retrospect, we concede that that was an unsupportable burden for our energy intensive industries, and the Government were at fault not to assess that. Equally, the coalition Government were at fault in not responding to the pressures placed on them by Members of Parliament to make subsequent changes.
	I heard what the Secretary of State said about business rates, but I hope that he and the Chancellor will look again at what can be done with that, not just in the steel sector but more broadly in industry and retail. Business rates seem to me a tax that is very relevant for change.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Gentleman’s intervention was timely because I am about to talk about industrial strategy. As he pointed out, mistakes can be made, and when the Committee had a vote on whether we should mention the industrial strategy, I was the only member of the Committee to vote against that. Personally, I believe that Governments’ industrial strategies are a nonsense, a mirage, a deceit, or, too often, a failure. Governments can take actions, they can spend money and they can show their preferences and priorities. All of that I accept, but an industrial strategy becomes a straitjacket that limits our actions and can set us up for big problems in international trade.
	Finally, the core of what we are discussing today are duties. The Secretary of State was absolutely right to point to our responsibilities under the WTO with regard to tariffs, and the fact that that sets a framework for us to respond. He is making those calculations in a careful way. It was interesting and I think welcome to many that he believes further changes on tariffs could be made within those rules. He is also right to say that changes to the lesser duty rule are not appropriate at this time.
	As I mentioned in an intervention on the shadow Secretary of State, I am fearful of what the tariff and counter-tariff arguments can do. Many Members have talked about what the United States is doing and that we should therefore do more, but this is where the breakdown of global trade begins: tariff and counter-tariff, competitive devaluation, recession and slump. When we perceive that a change in tariffs is fair and not about trade but about dumping, I would say to hon. Members that just because we may believe that that is the case does not mean that that is how it is perceived by those on whom those tariffs are imposed. The consequence of the Chinese economy having a retaliatory effect on the United Kingdom and other countries is where the breakdown in global trade can begin. Free trade is a global good.

George Kerevan: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that we are in exceptional times, and that by suspending the lesser harm rule and presenting the Chinese Government—most Chinese heavy steel plants are state-owned—with a major fait accompli, we might force negotiations on China to restructure its steel industry, whereas if we just proceed piecemeal we will not resolve anything?

Richard Fuller: If I may, I would like to address that point directly in a few minutes.
	Free trade is a global good. It enriches us. It broadens choice. Free trade, by bringing people of the world together, makes us safer. We have a responsibility, even in these difficult and straitened times, as the hon. Gentleman says, to protect free trade. Those of us here in the United Kingdom have a special responsibility to protect free trade, because we have been one of the major proponents of free trade over the past century and a half. That is something worth protecting and worth bearing in mind at all times.
	The hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) asked whether we should, essentially, toughen up in these special times with China. I think we are seeing indications that China understands it needs to toughen up as well. China has said—I am not an apologist for China; trust me, I like the other china—that it wishes to reduce its productive capacity, with one quarter of its production being taken out of commission. It is planning to reduce employment in this sector by 400,000 jobs. China is taking steps that indicate that it sees a responsibility to satisfy not just its own consumption and demand but its responsibilities in the global economy. Members should bear those thoughts in mind as they come to their conclusions.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend’s defence of free trade is admirable, but he is not suggesting, is he, that the Government are wrong to look at various ways of mitigating the problems that the steel sector is facing, in particular with regard to energy and on procurement?

Paul Flynn: The gulf in understanding between those on the two sides of the House is rarely more obvious than when we talk of heavy industry. It is clear that the Government, with all the good will they may have towards the industry, are in alien territory. The best they have been able to produce today is not a man or a woman of steel, but someone who lived within sight of a steelworks. I speak with a little authority on this, because I started working in the steel industry in 1955 and was still there 30 years later.
	There is a feeling of grief about the terrible destruction of the steel industry. People have talked about the scars on the countryside. It is painful to see areas that were once breathing fire and steam—where there was life, prosperity and energy—now wastelands of rubble and brambles. The real suffering is felt by those who worked there. They suddenly find that their often unique skills, the scrap of dignity around which they built their self-regard and their life, have been stripped away. They live the final years of their lives lacking that sense of self-respect, their ability to have the prosperity they expected torn away. I am very proud, with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), to represent Newport, which relied on the steel industry for 150 years. It has suffered terrible losses.
	I want to make a point about different attitudes. It is extraordinary how the Government have been seduced by Chinese communists, and how they are allowing the future of our industry to be colonised by the Chinese. It is unbelievable. We look back with amazement to see what we have done. We have mortgaged the future of our nuclear industry in perpetuity to a Chinese company. So that we can have the Hinkley sprat, we have given them the mackerel of Bradwell and the other power stations of the future. Something has happened with Hinkley Point and it is about time the House woke up to it. A former Secretary of State for Energy has written a book. He said on the “Today” programme this morning that Hinkley Point is a dinosaur. In the past fortnight, articles in the Financial Times and The Economist have said that it does not make sense to proceed. It is a basket case. It is a disaster in the making. All the sensible investors, including Centrica, which invested £200 million, have gone, and all that is left is this cheap, Chinese money and EDF.
	Where is EDF? EDF had a debt of £37 billion, and if it were not a nationalised company, it would be bankrupt. It is pulling away because the technology planned for Hinkley Point is a dinosaur—it has never worked anywhere. The EPR reactor in Finland should have been producing electricity seven years ago, but it is not, and there is no sign of it doing anything. It is the same with the Flammanville EPR. It has a major fault; there is a split in the steel in the vessel. The whole thing might never happen. These huge sums are at stake, yet the Government go blindly on in their belief in nuclear power. There is another side to this, too.

Richard Graham: rose—

Paul Flynn: I would rather not give way; too many people want to speak.
	One man has a belief in a different kind of energy. Mr Sanjiv Gupta recently rescued hundreds of jobs in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East. He believes in tidal energy. His company is without any debts and is free to spend its money anywhere. It has already saved jobs and it plans to create at least 1,000 new jobs, and the investment is based on tidal energy, not on the myths of Hinkley Point that will never happen, but on the tide, which flows up and down, washing the walls of Hinkley Point and our constituencies. It is the second highest rise and fall of tide in the world, with massive untapped power. It is clean, British and the source of power is freely available to us. It is entirely predictable and it is virtually eternal: it will go on for all of human time. The power is vast. If it is combined with pump storage schemes, when the tide is producing energy that is not required, it can be used to pump water up to the valleys, so it can become entirely demand responsive.
	There are two views on the issue. We know that the problem with the steel industry now and in the future is that it needs prodigious quantities of energy, and until we get entrepreneurs with imagination who believe in the practicalities of life, there will be little chance of progress.
	Let me make one final point. I was somewhat provoked to make it when I heard that the farmer Andrew R. T. Davies, who is the Opposition spokesman in the Welsh Assembly, has announced that he wants us to come out of Europe. The only advantage I can see of coming out of Europe is that it would allow us to look at the subsidies that all the farmers get, averaging £220,000 per year per farmer in Wales. If we come out of Europe, the question must be asked how we could possibly go on investing 30% to 40% of the total budget of the European Union in an industry that produces less than 2% of our gross national product—an industry that is in serious trouble, and is not competitive. Yet what is the attitude of the Government? They want to save it, and they will put through any kind of subsidy. It will be unlimited, because this is a party in which farmers are grossly over-represented and from which steelworkers are entirely absent.

Kevin Foster: How do you follow that? What I would say is that in describing as a “dinosaur” something that would be Britain’s biggest single construction project and would create 25,000 jobs west of Bristol, it comes as no surprise to me that one party is in danger of becoming extinct in the whole of the south-west peninsula.
	Why, as the MP for Torbay, which has no direct steel links, have I come along to this debate? It is because the issues raised in this debate impact on us all. I look at some of the firms starting to expand around Torquay, exporting high-tech, high-quality manufactured products, and realise that if China is starting to move into those markets as it modernises its economy, we could be debating those types of products in a few years’ time and seeing what China might do.
	I am interested in the impacts of what we are talking about on the ground. Some concepts can sound rather odd—the idea of a “lesser duty rule”, for example, and the impact it might or might not have in this area. There is a debate to be had about how the European Union can modernise some of its trade defence practices, so that where issues such as this come up, they can be responded to more quickly.
	Given the numbers provided by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), it is clear why it is so important that we work as part of 28 states. In view of the sheer scale of China and what it is doing, if we were trying to operate as 28 separate individual states, we would face the danger of each of us being picked off individually, as happened in the 1930s. That would be most worrying for us. It will therefore come as no great surprise to hear that I am one of the remain voters among Conservative Members, and I view it as absolutely right to bring a united front to this issue. We should bear it in mind, however, that not so long ago the European Union was busy dumping surplus agricultural products into the markets of, for instance, African countries. When we request other countries not to dump into our markets, we must also ensure that we in the European Union practise what we preach, and do not inflict on other countries what we are complaining about in relation to some of our own industries. I accept that the lesser duty rule is not making a direct impact in this instance. I am talking about the principle of how the correct tariffs are created and decided, on the basis of advice from industry.
	The Government should also think about the way in which our procurement works. I was interested by the response to my intervention on the speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), but I think it is worth pointing out that from the decks of the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers in Rosyth, 94% of which were constructed with British steel, it is possible to see a major construction project that is being built with steel from elsewhere in the world.

Hannah Bardell: rose—

Hannah Bardell: At the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he asked what he was doing here. Perhaps his purpose was to be the proponent of misinformation. I can confirm to him that during the procurement process to secure fabricated steel for the new Forth crossing, no company from Scotland, or from the United Kingdom as a whole, made a bid for the contract. A further sub-contract for steel fabrication was awarded to Cleveland Bridge in Darlington, and raw steel was supplied by Tata in both Scunthorpe and Motherwell. I hope that that clarifies the position, and that the hon. Gentleman now stands corrected.

Kevin Foster: What the hon. Gentleman has said proves yet again that there is not just a massive security argument in favour of building the four Successor submarines, but a considerable economic justification. In south Devon, I can look at the site in Plymouth where the submarines are currently being refitted. [Interruption.] It is always lovely to have an accompaniment from the Opposition Benches. I hear it regularly, and I thoroughly enjoy it.
	The hon. Gentleman’s intervention has made clear why it is so vital to build those submarines. I look forward to his joining me in the Lobbies when we vote on the issue, although we know that the people whose jobs rely on the Trident contract can expect absolutely no support from the Scottish National party.
	We can do a great deal more when it comes to procurement. The Hinkley Point project, for instance, will create a huge number of jobs in the south-west. We need to create an infrastructure that will meet the demand. I hope that a significant amount of British steel will also be used in the construction of the Stonehenge road tunnel.
	It has been interesting to take part in the debate, and to listen to some of the comments that have been made. I find it particularly interesting to hear demands for unilateral action from those who, like me, argue for us to remain in the European Union. Membership of the EU has many advantages, but unilateral action on tariffs is not one of them. However, 28 of us, working together, can make more of a difference.
	I shall not be supporting the Opposition motion, which will probably not come as a huge surprise, given some of the arguments that we have heard. I think it is right that the Government are playing a proactive role in the European Union to prompt action and to modernise their own procurement rules to ensure that we can defend our own industries, but also to ensure that, for our own projects, we buy as much British steel as we possibly can, respecting the fact that our country would not believe in state aid even if we were committed to it under European rules.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Tom Blenkinsop: There are a lot of issues that we could talk about today, including the Government’s unilateral introduction of the carbon price floor tax on energy intensive industries, but I will not go into that now. I have beaten that drum many times in this House. We could also talk about procurement contracts or business rates, but the two elements that I want to focus on are the lesser duty rule and Chinese market economy status. Those two issues are of primary concern to the UK steel industry.
	Today at the Competitiveness Council in Brussels, industry Ministers from across the EU are discussing actions to actively support the European steel industry, to enable the sector to compete on a fair and level playing field within the global market. This meeting follows the extraordinary Council meeting on steel that was held on 9 November last year and the High Level Conference on 15 February this year. Today’s meeting is the last chance saloon for this Government and our steel industry. Only last week, for example, the chief executive of Tata Europe, Karl Ulrich Köhler, quit the company. We have to bear that in mind and try to determine what it says about Tata’s future in the UK. The tsunami of underpriced, unfairly traded steel, most notably from China, is destroying the steelmaking capacity of the UK and the EU.
	This brings me to the primary point at issue. In order to retain virgin steel production in blast furnaces in the UK, we must deal with two immediate threats if our nation’s steel industry is even to stand still. Those threats are the lesser duty rule and Chinese market economy status. Europe currently uses the lesser duty rule to impose the lowest possible duties on unfairly traded products that have been dumped in European markets. That means that duties introduced by Europe are usually way below the actual margin of dumping. The result is that the dumping continues and unfairly traded products are allowed to compete in European markets and depress prices.
	The United States does not follow the lesser duty rule, which means that it can implement much tougher sanctions that reflect the actual margin of dumping. For example, the US recently imposed duties of 236% on a particular grade of Chinese steel. Furthermore, the US Government are in the process of introducing new laws that will enable the US to take even tougher action against Chinese dumping. The consequence for Europe, and for the UK in particular, if we do not take action as a European Union and if the Government actively prevent the EU from improving our standing, will be to exacerbate the amount of Chinese dumping in our domestic market and in our own EU market. It will actually affect our own exports, never mind our ability to look after ourselves.
	The director-general of EUROFER, Axel Eggert, has stated:
	“By blocking the lifting of the lesser duty rule, these member states deliberately deprive the European steel sector of the chance to receive effective and legitimate remedy against massive dumping. It is member states with steel production and jobs that continue blocking an agreement within the EU Council to remove this outdated rule.”
	He goes on to state:
	“It is most notably the UK”.

Tom Blenkinsop: In 2004, the Bush Administration imposed tariffs of more than 20% on European steel going into the US market. That level was eroded through negotiation. At this moment, China imposes tariffs on our products—British and European—that are already going into its market. So that tit-for-tat has already started. China already imposes huge tariffs on EU products going into its market. Why we are not protecting our own market and the European market—which, I might add, is the largest in the world—is beyond comprehension. I repeat that this is not about protectionism. It is about levelling the playing field to give British steel a domestic safe place to trade, within the European Union and externally. At this time, however, China is not abiding by World Trade Organisation rules, which must surely affect its future market economy status, which will be debated by the European Union.
	This brings me to the point about market economy status. Currency manipulation by China has also acted as a subsidy to its exports to EU member states and other countries, while China reciprocates by taxing EU exports. This, along with direct export subsidies, support policies and the rapid growth of planned investments in leading and pillar industries in China’s five-year development plans, has led to sustained, deliberate overproduction and substantial excess capacity throughout Chinese manufacturing.
	Even without MES, China has dramatically increased its exports to Europe by a remarkable 11.1% annual rate over the past 15 years—they rose from €74.6 billion-worth to €359.6 billion-worth in 2015. Put simply, the Government support Chinese MES, whether Britain is within the EU or outside it. I would argue that we may negotiate internally or externally, but we are in a far more difficult position as a population of 70 million than as the largest economic bloc in the world. The forecasts suggest that whether this is done inside or outside the EU, Chinese imports will rocket by between 25% to 50% in the next three to five years if MES is granted. That is devastating for not only steel, but every other industrial manufacturing sector. I come from the Teesside area and we do not just make steel there. We must not write off steel in our area, because we still have the beam mill in Redcar, Skinningrove in my constituency—

Alex Cunningham: I want to concentrate my remarks on three areas: the critical role that steelmaking has in our economy; the considerable burden this energy-intensive industry faces; and the Government’s ongoing response to the crisis on Teesside, where thousands of workers lost their jobs with the demise of the SSI and other plants. As others have said, steel is an important foundation industry, supplying materials to multiple strategic construction and manufacturing supply chains. Taken together, these industries represent 20% of those employed in the UK’s manufacturing sector and generate gross value added of £24.6 billion.
	UK Steel reports that, despite its problems, the sector makes a £9.5 billion contribution to the UK economy, with an export value of £4.9 billion. It generates £90,000 of added value for every steelworker. It produces hundreds of high-skilled, high-value-added apprentices, vocational trainees and graduates. It is well linked to the UK’s innovation infrastructure, through partnerships with leading universities, participation in catapults and our own research and development investment, and all despite the burden it faces. I just wonder for how much longer that will be the case.
	UK business rates are up to 10 times higher than those of many of our European competitors, such as France and Germany. Paul Turner-Mitchell, a business rates expert, says that property taxes in Britain are the highest, as a proportion of gross domestic product and total taxation, of all 36 OECD countries. A Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills report in December recommended that the Government reform business rates as they apply to manufacturing at the earliest possible opportunity, with priority being given to the removal of disincentives to invest in plant and machinery. Doing so would not need EU approval and would provide a more even playing field for UK steel producers. Exempting plant and machinery from business rates valuation would symbolise a commitment to rebalancing the economy, enhancing the UK’s attractiveness to inward investment in manufacturing and improving industry’s productivity, efficiency and competitiveness. Business rates are just one of the extra burdens suffered by our steel industry, as is the Government’s inability to act in Europe to halt the dumping of Chinese steel. In fact, our Government have helped to ensure that there is no impediment placed in the way of far east producers. Others have gone into that in detail and also mentioned the British Government’s failure to build British ships with British steel.
	I want to focus a little on energy costs and the absence of a level playing field for energy-intensive industries. The damaging effects of energy taxes levied on the business in the UK, leading to UK energy costs being twice as high as those among EU peers, are well understood. This comes on top of regulatory costs charged across the EU, such as the EU emissions trading scheme. British policy measures add 26% to the typical electricity price paid by an energy-intensive consumer in the UK, with steel a major loser. Yet we have still to see the compensation package for energy-intensive industries be implemented in full, and the sector is still paying 70% of the policy costs that the full package aims to address.
	The EU commission provided state-aid approval for proposals to compensate the industry in relation to the costs of the renewables obligation and feed-in tariffs in December 2015. Although we await the full implementation of the first part of the compensation scheme, there remains a second application that concerns competitors of those receiving compensation. Until that second application is approved, some companies are without access to much-needed compensation and exposed to 70% of climate change policy costs. I hope the Minister can give us an update on what is happening with that second application.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, you know of the closure of the SSI plant in Redcar and the loss of other steel jobs in Teesside, many of which are from my constituency. We appreciate the limited action that the Government have taken on Teesside even if the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report criticised the Government’s initial response, which was focused on compensating those affected rather than saying what could be done to save the plant. I recognise that we need to look to the future, so I ask the Minister what hope there is for steelmaking capacity on Teesside.
	I am very aware of the hundreds of millions of pounds it will cost each year just to maintain the SSI site and keep it safe. I am also aware of the proposal from the noble Lord Heseltine to have a mayoral development company in Tees Valley run locally by local politicians and his ambition to have the SSI site invested in that new body. He and the Minister for the northern powerhouse, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), appear to be excited by the proposal, and the development organisation is very welcome. Many of us, including some of those same local politicians, are very concerned about what it will mean. Lord Heseltine was at pains to explain to the media, including on television, that the financial buck rests firmly with the Government both for the maintenance and the redevelopment costs for that site. Time and again, he claimed that the Government had to take responsibility. Tonight, I invite the Minister to confirm that not only will there be support for steelmaking in Teesside, but that there may even be the possibility of increased activity in the future, and that the open-ended commitment made by Lord Heseltine on behalf of the Government in relation to the SSI site, and therefore in relation to Teesside, is a commitment she recognises and will ensure is actually fulfilled.

Christina Rees: Steel and the steel industry are vital to Wales, particularly to south Wales and my constituency of Neath. The Tata steel plant in Port Talbot is in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and the Trostre plant is roughly half an hour away in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). Both Aberavon and Llanelli are places in which hundreds of my constituents from Neath work every day.
	The fact that, this year, 1,050 jobs have been lost in the UK steel industry, 750 of which are in Port Talbot, shows the Government’s complete lack of action in saving the UK steel industry. Time and again, the Government have been dragged to the House by the Opposition to answer urgent questions on their plans to save the steel industry, but all they have offered are warm words, which are of no help to an industry that is in desperate need of action.
	Many options are available to the Government, including a large amount of readily available EU funding to shore up the industry. The Government could also take action against the large amount of Chinese steel being dumped on to UK markets.

Christina Rees: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Chinese steel is far inferior to UK steel.
	The Government could also take action against the large amount of Chinese steel being dumped on to EU markets, yet, again and again, they have left all such options to the side. The statistics speak of the importance of the steel industry in Wales. There are more than 6,300 jobs in Wales, over 4,500 of which are in Port Talbot and Trostre. Of that 4,500, almost a quarter are filled by people who live in my constituency of Neath. At this time, my constituents still do not know who will lose their jobs. For many, the plants in Port Talbot and Trostre are a way of life and have been for generations. Not knowing whether they will have a job in a month or two is absolutely unbearable for them. I know personally of the community that has grown up around the plants. My father worked at the Abbey, which later became the Steel Company of Wales and then Tata. When I was a schoolchild, I played hockey for the steel company. It was the centre of the community; SCOW put food on our plates at home and contributed enormously to our social and sporting lives. The same sense of community applies today to the 4,500 workers and their families that still work at and depend on the plants. The threat of the closure of Trostre and Port Talbot is more than I can contemplate, given the devastating effect on communities.
	The Minister insists that the Government are doing all they can to help the industry, but that requires action rather than the warm words that they are offering. There is so much that the Government can do, especially about the dumping of Chinese steel on the market. The prospective change in dumping calculation methodologies away from the analogue method towards local Chinese prices and costs could result in the direct loss of at least 310,000 jobs in EU industries already badly hit by dumped Chinese exports. That is in addition to the hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs that would be at stake. Surely, rather than the Chancellor moving ever closer to the Chinese, he should not grant market economy status to China until it fulfils all five EU technical criteria and not before a thorough EU-wide impact assessment, including a full public consultation.
	It is important to tackle the dumping of steel because our current anti-dumping measures cannot counter the massive blow caused by Chinese steel import surges.
	Lifting the lesser duty rule would remove the cap on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy levels, simultaneously bringing the EU in line with everybody else, but the Government have chosen to be the main player in blocking those changes. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government are doing all they can, including reversing the decision to impose low-level duties on Chinese rebar and supporting the steel industry by supporting the lifting of the lesser duty rule? Even the former European CEO of Tata agrees. He has said that as long as trade defence protections are not introduced, the dumping of steel below its cost of production will continue.
	The UK steel industry had 280,000 jobs in 1970, but now it has only 30,000. That is 250,000 jobs lost in less than 50 years. When will the Government wake up and pay attention? Will they pay attention before it is too late? EU options are also available to us. Why are the Government not moving forward and allowing the modernisation of EU trade defence instruments that would stop it taking a year and a half from complaint to definitive anti-dumping measures?
	Many regions in the world are more effective in providing a level playing field for their industries and deploy trade defence tools faster and more effectively. As a consequence, dumped goods find their way on to the European market much more easily. The Government would prefer to argue with themselves over the issue of the EU than to use our membership of it to save the UK’s steel industry and the jobs of my constituents in Neath.
	The president of the European Steel Association, EUROFER, has said that if we do not use the trade defence instruments available to us there is a substantial risk we will see more plant closures and job losses. Given the wide number of options available, why are the Government not standing up for UK steel in the EU and arguing for modernisation? Over and over again the Government have missed their chance to save the UK steel industry. The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise has told the House that the steel industry is vital for the UK, yet the Government are treating it with contempt and playing fast and loose with the livelihoods of the tens of thousands of workers in the industry.
	The Welsh Government are doing all they can within their power to help the affected communities in Wales. They are working tirelessly to provide support to the industry, but, as the First Minister has said, the fundamental question facing steel production in Wales goes far beyond the devolved responsibilities of the Welsh Government. He has said that the UK Government must step up and play their part.

Stephen Kinnock: I am grateful that we have been able to secure this debate. Ever since last month’s announcement of 750 job losses at the Port Talbot steelworks, I have been calling for a full and comprehensive debate on the future of British steel. The Tata steelworks in Port Talbot is the beating heart of my Aberavon constituency. These job losses, and those that are sure to follow along the supply chain, are a devastating blow.
	The Secretary of State will be aware that following that announcement, Tata has been working on a rescue plan, which will be discussed by the Tata board in Mumbai at a critically important meeting at the end of next month. I implore the Government to give their full support to the rescue plan by, for example, ensuring that there is proper investment support to improve the plant’s premium product capabilities. Such support could help in converting the continuous annealing process line into a galvanising line, thereby better serving the automotive market. Can the Minister confirm that she will urge the Chancellor to give a firm and positive commitment on enhanced capital allowance, to allow the Welsh Government Tata taskforce to move forward in establishing an enterprise zone in Port Talbot?
	I will now focus on what the Government should be doing at national and European level. It is well known that this Government operate inside a fog of laissez-faire ideology. Their modus operandi is to pray to the gods of the free market and hope for the best. But it is fascinating to observe that this steel crisis is cutting through that fog, and forcing the Tories to understand a very simple truth—that when the market fails, Government should intervene.
	The market economy can function effectively only if it is regulated. Just as a game of football requires the off-side rule to ensure fair competition, so the British steel industry requires the right regulatory framework, so that it can be given a fighting chance, on a level playing field. The impact of the market failure, and of the Government’s failure to intervene to fix it, is being felt around the country by the thousands of steelworkers and their families. They are victims of the Government’s laissez-faire doctrine. They are the victims of the Government’s failure to stand up for British steel.
	All of us here today will be aware of the five industry asks. The Government like to boast of delivering on four of those five asks, but a cursory glance at the scorecard demonstrates how disingenuous that claim is. Take the compensation package for energy intensive industries. Five years after the Chancellor accepted the need for it, the money still has not arrived. Perhaps the cheque got lost in the Christmas post. And what about procurement? There is no tangible evidence of any change. If there were, why on earth is the MOD’s latest order for a set of Royal Navy frigates going to be based on Swedish steel? Why would a Government seriously committed to supporting the Welsh steel industry still be flip-flopping on the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon?
	Most disingenuous of all is surely the Government claim that they are acting against the dumping of anti-competitive subsidised Chinese steel. If anyone doubts the acute impact of Chinese steel dumping, they should just look at rebar. From almost no market share in 2011 today, Chinese rebar accounts for almost half the UK market. That is the cost of five years of Conservative Government, five years in the fog of laissez-faire dogma and inaction, five years of watching the storm clouds gather on the horizon and refusing to strengthen the flood defences, five Tory years of rolling out the red carpet for Beijing, rather than standing up for the men and women who form the backbone of the British economy. May I therefore implore those on the Conservative Benches to resist the temptation to blame Labour? The exponential growth in Chinese market share has taken place since 201l, on their watch. Let us accept that fact and move on.
	The growth in Chinese market share is possible only because of Beijing’s subsidies and market distortion—70% of Chinese steelmakers are state owned. In the light of this fact alone, who in all seriousness could possibly see China as a market economy? I’ll tell you who: the British Government. Yes, our very own Government have taken it upon themselves to become some sort of outpost of the Chinese PR machine. UK Steel, Tata and Community have all stated unequivocally that the granting of market economy status to China would probably be the last nail in the coffin for UK steelmaking, yet the Prime Minister and his Government are actively lobbying in Brussels and across Europe, for China to be granted that status. The decision on this will be taken in December. There is still time for the Government to change their mind. There is still time for the Government to be a cheerleader for Britain, rather than a lobbyist for Bejing.
	But market economy status is not the only area where the Government are actively undermining the British steel industry. It has become widely recognised in Europe that the lesser duty rule is killing our industry. Indeed, the European Commission proposal that it be scrapped was supported by the European Parliament. Yet the UK continues to be the ringleader in blocking the scrapping of the lesser duty rule. I have grown used to warm words being matched with frozen actions, but this is much worse. On trade defence and the lesser duty rule, this Government have publicly declared their undying commitment to British steel, while behind closed doors they have consciously conspired to undermine the British steel industry. The gaping chasm between their words and their deeds needs to be explained. I hope that they will do so in the near future.
	We need a Government who are committed to a long-term industrial strategy and who are more committed to Britain than they are to Beijing, not spinning a line in public while agitating for the opposite behind closed doors. We need a Government who will stand up for British steel.

Margaret Ferrier: I would like to thank Labour Members who are responsible for the allocated Opposition debate time being used to bring this issue to the forefront again. It was with an incredibly heavy heart that I learned of the planned closure of the Clydebridge steel treatment mill in my constituency. Although the site employs far fewer people than the rolling mill in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), or sites represented by other Members in the Chamber today, the closure and the associated jobs losses are just as devastating. The work of the trade unions on the ground in my constituency is to be commended, and I am sure that sentiment will be echoed across the UK.
	The human cost is sometimes secondary to the loss of industry in media coverage, and it would serve us all well to remember that thousands of jobs have already been lost and many more are at risk. Each one of those jobs represents mortgage and rent payments, food on the table, electricity and other utility bills, clothing, council tax, and all the other outgoings that steelworkers and their families face. The crisis facing the industry is causing crises in the homes of steelworkers the length and breadth of Britain. Every job loss holds its own unique story and its own heart-breaking strain on families. Every job loss is a hammer blow to local economies and communities, and it puts more jobs at risk along the supply chain.
	I have heard Government Ministers say too often that they are taking action to protect jobs, but reality betrays that assertion. The industry is haemorrhaging jobs. It is an industry on life support. I make no apology for saying that the Government have simply not acted swiftly or decisively enough. The Tory manifesto claimed that they are “the party of working people”. Rhetoric is all well and good, but the steelworkers in Clydebridge are some of the hardest-working people I know, and they deserve to be supported properly.
	First Minister Nicola Sturgeon moved swiftly to establish the Scottish steel taskforce. As a member, I have been impressed by how much that multi-agency body has achieved. Its approach has resulted in real interest from alternative operators, with the possibility remaining that both mills can be kept operational by a new owner. If that is the case—I hope it is—the new operator will be able to resume production swiftly due to the Scottish Government’s steelworkers retention plan.
	Action has been taken on business rates, in addition to new public procurement guidance on steel. A new action plan, “A Manufacturing Future for Scotland”, specifically singles out the steel industry as a vital strategic asset in the Scottish economy, while acknowledging the particular pressures it faces. It also details further specific measures to help steel and other energy-intensive industries, such as a new expert advice and support service, which will work with operators to develop feasible and cost-effective business plans to implement energy saving opportunities.
	The measures taken by the Scottish Government are bold and forward-thinking. We need to see some of that from the UK Government. I welcome the measures taken thus far and appreciate that the Government have listened and taken some action, but they need to keep going, as there is more to be done. The crisis facing the steel industry still exists, and we need to face it down.
	It is nothing short of a disgrace that the UK Government are blocking proposals to raise tariffs on Chinese steel. The lesser duty rule must be lifted, and the Government must act to support that. That is the kind of bold action that is needed in order to start levelling the playing field. Excuses for not doing so have been incredibly flimsy and sufficiently lacking in backbone to be classified almost as invertebrate. The scales are currently weighted against us—tipped unfairly by massive amounts of subsided Chinese product. Unless we force a rebalancing, the situation will not change. I do not see that happening; indeed, the opposite seems to be true, as we move towards a situation where China will gain market economy status, as advocated by our ever willing Chancellor.
	In short, an already dire situation looks set to get worse. In years to come, I do not want to be in the position of saying, “I told you so.” I want the UK to act like the superpower whose image the Government are so desperate to project to the rest of the world. We will do that by ensuring that this vital strategic asset is protected, not by making absurd concessions to make friends, and certainly not through utter intransigence.
	Who will respect us if we hand our centuries-old industry to our bigger, cheaper rivals? We owe it to our rich history, to our steel towns and cities, and most importantly to our hard-working steelworkers throughout the UK to stand up now and take the bold action that is so desperately needed.

Jessica Morden: As I make my contribution, I am mindful of the fact that steelworkers in my constituency will soon find out whether they still have a job, because the consultants doing the job matching will soon finish their work. Up to 750 jobs will be lost in south Wales, with the losses in Llanwern, in my constituency, very much wrapped up in the announcement of the job losses at Port Talbot. Although the Tata press release talked about Port Talbot, it is hugely important to workers and their families in Newport, not to mention in the wider economy, that we remember Llanwern, because the effects are being keenly felt there.
	Before the debate, I asked Newport steelworkers what comments they would like me to make to the Minister—I know other hon. Members do that before steel debates—and they said, “Please just keep saying what you said last time: that our industry needs help now. Please remind the Government that we are here.”
	Time and time again, we have come to this Chamber asking for real action from the Government for the steel industry, but despite the debates, the questions and the summits, the industry and the unions tell us that not enough tangible progress has been made. That message came out loud and clear from the recent Welsh Affairs Committee hearing on the problems in the steel industry in Wales. In evidence to the Committee, Tata’s director of strip products, Stuart Wilkie, talked about the three things the business needed to survive in Wales and counteract the perfect storm it faces: increased efficiency, reduced costs and Government support.
	On efficiencies, Tata has already made major inroads into downsizing the business’s production capacity, and my constituents know only too well the effect that that has had, be that on the pickle line or the mothballed hot mill.
	We have seen the reduction of costs over the years in Newport, including job losses, as Llanwern has reduced in size. Only last year there were 97 contractors on site, and now they have gone. We must remember that behind every job loss figure is an individual and a family.
	On the third element—the support the industry gets from the Welsh Government and the UK Government—the Welsh Government taskforce has been well received. It is proactive, and it is welcome that there is a voice for steelworker representatives. The taskforce does what it can with the levers it has at its disposal. From the Welsh Affairs Committee session, I know that Tata and the unions say that the dialogue with the Welsh Government and the assistance from them are exceptionally good.
	In the case of Westminster, the industry says that there has been progress, but it has not been speedy enough, and there has been little bottom-line impact so far. We have had to take the job losses and the efficiencies, but we need tangible help to make sure that there is a strong plan to move us through the next two years. I cannot reiterate enough that that really matters for flex plants such as Llanwern.
	On energy, companies will not see the money from phase 2 of the energy-intensive industries package until March, and they have waited two years for action. On dumping, the Government say they are doing something, and they are making supportive noises, yet they oppose the scrapping of the lesser duty rule, as we have heard many times today, and they support the granting of market economy status to China.
	On procurement, more could be done to bring the Government together with companies to find out what is needed and how it can be supplied. Good work is going on in infrastructure projects in Wales. The Government say they have produced their guidance, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked, what practical impact has it had so far? The message repeated relentlessly at the Welsh Affairs Committee hearing was the need for more speed and more action, and the need to monitor our industry for the longer term to try to see what is coming—to anticipate and look ahead.
	Steelworkers in my constituency have seen major restructuring over the years, and I know of the under- standable fear, worry and concern that that breeds. As my hon. Friend said, our steel communities are looking to the Government in this hour of need. The Government need to put their warm, sympathetic words into action, because those working in steel feel that they have been far too slow to act. On behalf of the workers in my constituency, I call on the Government to support the steel industry far more proactively in the Budget.

Nicholas Dakin: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who speaks with great passion about the impact of the steel industry on her constituents. It is very much the same for my constituents, who are currently going through 900 job losses. Coming down here this morning, I found myself on the same train as Ian Smith and Paul McBean, the leaders of the Community union in Scunthorpe. I pay tribute to them for the work that they have done, alongside Martin Foster of Unite and, indeed, all the steelworkers and their families in Scunthorpe, in going through this very difficult time and leading the way forward. It is good that there are ongoing discussions with Greybull Capital about the future of the works. I commend everybody who is supporting those discussions, including those in Government. These are difficult times and we will face a very difficult future, whatever it is, so it is important that those discussions are successful.
	I want to give a sort of half-term report on the Government’s progress so far on the industrial asks. The Minister, for whom I have a lot of regard, is fond of saying, “We have delivered, largely, on these asks”, but I think she will recognise, along with me, that it is a job started but still to be finished. First, on business rates, the Minister herself recognises that there has been little progress, but points us with a mischievous twinkle in her eye to the forthcoming Budget. I hope that twinkle bears dividends in the end and we see some movement on business rates.
	Secondly, on energy costs, it has taken over three years for us to get delivery on the mitigation for the carbon floor tax, which the Government unilaterally applied. As my hon. Friend said, the money is still not in the coffers of the steel makers. On energy costs, I would appreciate it if the Government looked at the flawed EU emissions trading system proposal to see what can be done about it. It needs to be offset against indirect carbon costs, because otherwise it will do further damage to the UK steel industry through carbon leakage to other parts of the world and will fail to deliver what it is intended to do.
	Thirdly, the Government are to be congratulated on bringing forward new procurement guidelines, but frankly, guidelines are not worth the paper they are written on unless they have an impact on how the Government and their contractor base deliver. There are a few tests we can apply. We can look at what is going on in defence; many Members have alluded to the issues there. I was pleased that a Defence Minister said today that there was a desire to push the guidelines down the procurement pipeline, but the Government need to push hard to make the difference that we need. I commend to them looking at the work that Network Rail does, because we have there a pipeline of best practice that needs to be matched in other industries.
	On renewables, DONG Energy has just got the contract for developing Hornsea Project One. However, the test will be whether UK taxpayers, through the very generous contract for difference deal, and UK energy bill payers, are financing the delivery of renewable wind farms built with UK steel or with other steel. The Government need to keep their eye on that, because it is a real test of their procurement rules.
	The job has begun and it is, in theory, going in the right direction, but unless it has an impact it will be worth nothing. I know that the Minister wants to see impacts, so I will be interested to hear how she is going to ensure that the great expectation she has given us is delivered on.

Jim McMahon: This has been a fascinating debate. Members might ask why an MP from Oldham is present in a debate about steel—we do not have a steel industry to speak of—but I have seen the demise of manufacturing in my community. When we talk about numbers in this place, we have to relate them back to the families affected. Communities are destroyed when industry disappears. We have heard time and again about the interventions that could be made, and my hon. Friend has made a fantastic point about them, but does he have any faith in this Government to deliver on them?

Nicholas Dakin: It is the Government’s duty to deliver, and we have to work with them to make that happen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said right at the beginning of the debate, they have been dragged kicking and screaming towards delivery. We need them to deliver faster, because our communities, the steelworkers and their families do not have the time to wait. That is why the Government need to step up to the steel plate and deliver before it is too late.
	The fourth issue is communist Chinese dumping. If I had said 20 years ago that a Government would be in hock to communist China in undermining our manufacturing base, people would have said, “That’s what you’d expect from the Labour party,” but it is a Conservative Government who are doing it, which is remarkable—they are in hock to communist China.
	We need to take action on the lesser duty rule. The Secretary of State said that the Government can take action in other ways, but we need more details of how they will take action against Chinese dumping, to make sure that there is a fair and level playing field. Nobody wants benefits; all we are asking for, on behalf of our industries, is a fair playing field, and that is what acting on the lesser duty rule will achieve.
	Many Members have spoken at great length about market economy status. During Foreign Office questions last week, I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary repeat the commitment that market economy status would be determined and seen through the prism of steel. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that unless China delivers on steel in the way that it should, it will not get market economy status.
	In conclusion, my constituents are very keen on this debate and want the Government to do even more to deliver so that my constituents and my community can have good jobs and a good future.

Stephen Doughty: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, if we do not put those tariffs up and other countries do, our industry will end up with double or triple dumping, with all its consequences.
	The Minister has talked on many occasions about the compensation package. It has been long in coming, and its announcement was welcome, but the reality is that a lot of that compensation has simply not been paid yet. I have spoken to Celsa, in my constituency, in recent days. Can the Minister tell us how much compensation has been paid out and what difference it is making today? I am not talking about promises for the future; I want to know what difference it is making today.
	I want to bring the Minister’s attention back to the charter for British steel, which we have discussed on several occasions. It laid out a clear set of arguments about sustainability, quality in procurement, and the sort of steel that we can produce, which we should be using in our construction and infrastructure projects. BS 6001 certification shows that steel has been manufactured in a sustainable and responsibly sourced manner and that, crucially, it can be traced back to its raw materials. In defence infrastructure projects or projects such as Crossrail—in which Celsa rebar has been used—we want to ensure that we use high-quality British steel that can be traced, and which has high carbon standards and high quality standards, so that we can be sure it will be there for the long term.
	There are some wider questions that I would like the Minister to answer. I turn briefly to procurement, because I think the Government have been somewhat disingenuous in claiming that the whole thing is done and dusted and that action has been taken. There have been welcome statements from the Minister and others about the guidance that is being given. I am concerned, however, about the fact that although we are asking Departments what they are doing, the Ministry of Defence has said that it is not keeping the records. The Secretary of State said earlier that his Department will be helping other Departments. He needs to get in there and ensure that the MOD keeps the records in the first place, as well as driving and advertising opportunities for procurement. Look at the list of projects: the Tide class tankers, the Scouts—now Ajax—and the frigates—[Interruption.] The Minister is absolutely right to say that we do not make the steel for Ajax, but other parts of the programme could be sourced from UK steel. There is still no answer on the customisation of the Tide class tanker, which was made in Korea. Those are the real questions.
	The Minister was chuntering earlier about doing down the industry. We can produce that high-quality steel in the UK, and we should get to the bottom of why British companies are not bidding for or securing some of those projects. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills should do all it can, with other Departments, to facilitate that market—[Interruption.] The Minister says that the Department does so, but the facts do not add up.
	Finally, I want to talk about our role in Europe. I am glad that the Minister agrees that our place is in the EU, and it is a pleasure to have her supportive messages on social media about that. I am glad that we agree. I firmly believe that we achieve more for the steel industry working together across Europe than we would alone, but the Government have to be in there, fighting for the UK steel industry. I know that the Minister has done that on several occasions.
	The reality is that the Government were warned years and years ago about the pressures facing the industry. A company such as Celsa in my constituency faces 70% higher energy costs than companies in Germany, as well as the dumping that the Government have been warned about so many times. If Ministers do not deal with those concerns, there is no possibility of pan-European co-operation. Why did it take so long for the Secretary of State to get out there and make that case in Brussels? Will she give us the absolute assurance that, during the next crucial months for the industry, she and he be will out there making that case on the duties, procurement and cross-European infrastructure? Only by doing that will we achieve the benefits for the steel industry that all of us across Europe want.
	I want to see a future for the steel industry. I am glad that the Government are being pulled, kicking and screaming, on some of the issues. We need action and for it to keep coming, and we must ensure that we have a future for the steel industry in south Wales and across the whole of the UK.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Anna Turley: I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, but I am afraid that I contribute to debates on steel with a heavy heart and a bitter taste in my mouth. I led such debates back in September to plead with the Government to intervene and to save the steel works in Redcar, but I now stand in the Chamber to represent over 3,000 people who have lost their livelihoods and their identity, and to represent a barren, silent industrial giant of a blast furnace, which still dominates the skyline of Redcar and is a visible daily reminder of this Government’s abandonment. I stand here to represent a community that feels let down, cheated and bereft. It is a tragedy that, despite representing a constituency that forged the steel that built the bridges and skyscrapers of the world in the 20th century, I stand here now, in a debate about British steelmaking, to represent a constituency that no longer makes steel. However, I am here because I owe it to my constituents, and those who fought so hard and with such dignity for our own steelworks.
	I and my Labour colleagues will keep battling and fighting for steelworkers throughout the country and for the future of this vital industry. At this point, I want to pay tribute to others who are fighting so hard to save our steel—the steelworkers who have taken their campaigns to Brussels and around this country, and particularly the Community union and the Daily Mirror newspaper for their fantastic campaigns. We have to keep fighting to ensure that Britain is a country that still makes things; to make sure that our homes, our ships, our railways and our submarines are built with British steel; and to make sure that our industrial engineers have jobs and that our young people have a future where they make something more meaningful than a latte or a Subway sandwich.
	Steelmaking would be an industry with a future if only it had a Government that believed in it. Steel is integral to the long-term success of our advanced manufacturing, particularly in relation to the automotive, aerospace and rail sectors and to our sovereign capability in the defence and nuclear industries. Steelmaking can be competitive in this country, and we on Teesside can still play a role. We just need the Government to take action. Teesside still has the potential to be a hub for developing new technologies, and to lead the way in the circular economy—re-engineering waste, recycling and energy recovery. Where once we may have produced carbon, now we can capture and store it or even reuse it. Where once we forged steel, we may yet be able to recycle it with electro-arc furnaces. We just need a Government who believe in us.
	That is why I will continue to press the Minister—I hope that she will, in turn, press Innovate UK and, ahead of the Budget, the Chancellor—for the establishment of a materials catapult for research and innovation on Teesside, focusing on the early stage of metals development.

Jim McMahon: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Chancellor seems to spend a disproportionate amount of time speaking to the Chinese about investment to fund the northern powerhouse investment pitch book—of course, to appeal to parts of the UK that other potential Conservative leadership candidates cannot possibly reach—than supporting our own industry? Will she join me in warning Conservative Members that if our industry dies, Britain dies too?

Anna Turley: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. There is no greater testament to the lack of progress of the northern powerhouse so far than the devastating loss of steelmaking on Teesside. If the northern powerhouse means anything at all, it means jobs, industry and growth on Teesside, and on that count the Government have failed.
	With the materials catapult for Teesside—the existing research and development hub, which is the materials processing industry in my constituency—the Government have the perfect opportunity to put right some of their wrongs and to help some kind of steel phoenix to rise from the ashes in Teesside. Teesside can build on its industrial strength and once more play a vital role in driving the UK’s industrial and high-tech economy of the future.
	But we need a Government that will support us, a Government that will commit to an industrial strategy and a Government that, dare I say it, will invest. What we do not need are a Government that fail to play their role on the global stage, but that is what we have seen. The Chancellor has been out in China, and I can only imagine how grateful it is to him that his Government have actively blocked our European colleagues’ efforts to increase tariffs on Chinese steel in the EU by scrapping the lesser duty rule. I can only imagine how grateful it is to him that his Government are such cheerleaders for China in seeking market economy status, which would give the green light to Chinese steel flooding. President Obama has pledged aggressive action through the trade Bill in Congress, and the US recently imposed duties of 236% on a particular grade of Chinese steel.
	I, for one, am fed up with the Government and Government Members pretending that membership of the EU is the reason they cannot act. Instead, I want them to work with our European partners to impose tariffs and tackle dumping. I am frankly embarrassed that it is the UK that is leading a small group of nations in opposing higher tariffs on China because of the Tories’ ideological obsession with a market economy that sees jobs, communities and entire industries as a price worth paying for their kind of laissez-faire, unfettered global market.

Anna Soubry: You know that’s not true.

Anna Turley: We have heard it from the Government Benches tonight.
	We will keep fighting and holding the Government’s feet to the fire. No more job losses, no more closures—we need the Government to act. We want the Government to stand up for Britain. We want the Government to save our steel.

Hannah Bardell: It is a pleasure and a privilege to bring up the rear, so to speak, in such an important debate. If I may be light-hearted for a moment, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) was challenged to a rugby match at the beginning of the debate, so I am pleased to inform her that I took part in the first mixed rugby match recently, representing the MPs and Lords. I even scored a try. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”]
	The number of debates we have had on this issue and the number of times we have returned to it show the strength of feeling not just across this House, but across the nations of the United Kingdom. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who spoke passionately about their constituencies, as did Members from across the House. My colleagues have been involved in the Scottish taskforce and have done extensive work in engaging with their respective local communities on the future of the steel industry in Scotland and in standing up for their rights and interests. As they said, the steel industry has been at the heart of their constituencies for generations. Our thoughts continue to be with the many towns and communities across the UK that are at the mercy of the volatility in the global steel market and the glut of steel production, as well as the UK Government’s lack of commitment and action.
	I pay tribute to the work of everyone on the Scottish steel taskforce, including the union representatives. I am particularly pleased that they have been included in the Scottish taskforce, by contrast with the situation at the outset south of the border. They were at the heart of our discussions and engagement from the very beginning.
	Fergus Ewing MSP, my colleague in the SNP Government, is the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism. He faces many challenges, but he and his colleagues in the Scottish Government and Parliament, including Clare Adamson MSP, who is from a steelworking family, continue to work tirelessly to keep the Dalzell and Clydebridge steel plants open. They are committed to finding a buyer for the sites, continuing commercial production and keeping as many jobs as possible onsite and in Scotland.
	The strategic importance of the plants to Scotland and the UK cannot be overstated. It is apparent in the specialist skills and knowledge and the innovative approach that are inherent in Clydebridge and Dalzell. According to UK Steel, the Dalzell plant is the only plant in the UK capable of rolling and processing the steel that is used in the Ministry of Defence’s special armour plate and for certain requirements of the offshore oil and gas industry. The Clydebridge plant specialises in producing difficult-to-make high-strength steels that are used in some of the most challenging environments in the world. We truly have a world-class industry that we in Scotland believe is worth fighting for.
	However, when the UK Government are faced with an opportunity to fix the issues, they are flat-footed and seem to shy away. A case in point is the issue of tariffs, which has been discussed extensively this evening. It is shameful that the UK Government have actively blocked the proposals to raise tariffs on Chinese steel. The UK Government confirmed in mid-February that they had blocked proposals from EU members to block the dumping of cheap steel products in the EU by China. The Government’s blocking of the proposal came after the Secretary of State signed a joint letter from European Ministers, pledging
	“to use every means available and take strong action”
	against China and Russia. He has the means at his fingertips, but he chooses not to use them.
	The UK Government must work harder with their European partners to address the dumping of cheap steel in European markets, which is, as we all know, undermining UK steel production. Although 2% of UK steel demand was met by Chinese imports in 2011, that figure has been forecast to rise to 8% this year and next. We are all keen to hear from the Minister on that point.
	The message is clear: there are vital skills, innovative approaches, and a unique and distinct heritage in Scotland and the UK steel industry, but how far will the Government go to save it? When I was doing research for this debate, I came across an article in the Scunthorpe Telegraph:
	“Scunthorpe’s main steel union Community has slammed Business Secretary Sajid Javid for stating the UK steel industry could not expect to be to bailed out in the same way as the banks.”
	A spokesman for the Community union said:
	“The Prime Minister himself has said that steel making is ‘vital’ to the UK economy, so these are ill-judged remarks from Mr Javid.”
	I could not agree more.
	The UK Government have the money, political will and determination to bail out the banks, but they cannot find it in their heart, or indeed their pockets, to support an industry that is of vital strategic importance to our economy. I am not, of course, calling for the nationalisation of steel production assets, but I simply suggest that the Government are short on political will and creativity in supporting the steel industry in its time of need.

Bill Esterson: Again, we are debating the crisis in the steel industry in the context of thousands of job losses, closures of steel plants, and an industry hanging by a thread, with the livelihoods of
	20,000 workers, their families and communities under threat, and all that in an industry worth £9.5 billion to the UK economy, and which ran a trade surplus in 14 of the last 17 years. The problem we face now is that of the dumping of cheap Chinese steel on the global market. The challenge is how we defend highly skilled British jobs and the future of a vital industry, and safeguard an important source of exports in the face of this crippling and difficult situation. We must support the wider economy by taking a strategic view of what is in the national interest.
	We have heard excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), for Newport West (Paul Flynn), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for Neath (Christina Rees), for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for Redcar (Anna Turley), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth).
	The steel industry and the thousands of people that it employs are looking to Parliament and to the Government for support. The industry has come to the Government with five key asks to help to protect jobs and exports. Although there has been some belated progress, the Government’s response overall shows that they are not prepared to take an active role in protecting the steel industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said when commenting on the excellent BIS Committee report, we must do more at European Union level. The Government claim that four out of five asks have been delivered, but on procurement no orders have been received in steel plants since those changes were made.
	My hon. Friend told us that cheap Chinese steel needs effective international action if it is to be tackled. China is responsible for four times the combined production of the next biggest four steel producers, and unless there is co-ordinated, concerted effort internationally to combat illegal dumping, nothing will change. We were told that the British steel industry faces an existential threat through the grossly distorted market, and my hon. Friend’s plea, and that of members of his Committee, was for a co-ordinated approach.
	The industry needs swift action on tariffs that protects steel produced in the UK and other EU countries against Chinese dumping, yet our Government have played a role in blocking that. The Prime Minister’s office opposed the idea of fairer tariffs on the grounds that it was protectionism—something confirmed a number of times throughout the Secretary of State’s speech today. Ensuring that we have a level playing field to protect our workers and businesses from a situation that threatens to destroy an entire industry is not protectionism. On the contrary, it is common sense and it is right. As Gareth Stace, the director of UK Steel, said:
	“Anti-dumping measures in the EU do not currently have the teeth to halt this tsunami of dumped steel”.
	The Government must support the lifting of the lesser duty rule, because otherwise steel manufacturing will be lost in the UK and across Europe. It is a simple ask, and one that is supported by other EU countries, yet the UK Government have failed to stand by their own country’s industries, not just in steel but in ceramics and other energy-intensive industries.
	The Government have also shown little action on changing business rates for large manufacturers. I sat in Committee last week with the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise and heard of her commitment to an overhaul of rates. When it comes to it, however, the review first announced in 2011 is still to start and the industry continues to pay twice when it comes to rates on investment in plant and machinery. The industry was told that helping plant and machinery manufacturers was unaffordable. The Government review rumbles on as we wait to hear what they will do to support investment in plant and machinery. Will they tackle existing competitive disadvantages suffered by UK steel sites on plant and machinery, which account for up to 50% of their business rates?
	Serious challenges have coalesced around the steel industry: a glut of global supply, energy costs, high business rates and a strong pound. The industry did not expect the Government to offer a silver bullet. What it rightly expected was for the Government to play their role in what should be a partnership. The most successful economies are characterised by partnership between government, industry and the workforce. For partnership to be effective, the Government have to play their part. Businesses and workers, through the trade unions, have played their part, but what of the Government? The situation demanded that the Government see the long-term strategic value of steel production and act accordingly to protect high-skill jobs and the future of a key strategic industry. The Government, however, failed to intervene to save the Redcar coke ovens. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) rightly described that lack of support as an act of industrial vandalism.
	An industrial strategy is nothing more than a Government’s willingness to enter into a partnership with business and workers: to match their ambitions by looking beyond election cycles and investing in the infrastructure and the training they need to flourish; to see the long-term value of strategic industries; and to take the necessary steps to support and safeguard them. If the Secretary of State and his Ministers want to be a true partner to the steel industry, there are few clearer steps that the Government must take now. [Interruption.] If the Lord Chancellor were here earlier, he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) saying that.
	The Government must block the unfair trading of steel by supporting EU trade defence instruments, allowing the swift implementation of defensive tariffs. The Secretary of State must throw his support behind tariffs and ensure they are set at a level that would protect UK steel. He and his colleagues should support the EU countries that have supported a level of tariffs that will help our industry and our economy. Remember that at one stage it looked as though the Secretary of State accepted the need for change. He signed a letter with counterparts from France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Belgium and Luxembourg demanding that the European Commission use every means available and take strong action in response to unfair trade practices. Sadly, a week later he told the Business, Innovation and Skills
	Committee that he was opposed to that very action, something he confirmed this evening when he said he was against removing the lesser duty rule. UK Steel director Gareth Stace described the U-turn as “galling” and said that
	“government must support the lifting of the lesser duty rule, otherwise steel manufacturing will be lost in the UK and Europe.”
	We need to take an active role in tackling Chinese steel dumping and need action on business rates for key industries and capital-intensive firms to level the field for UK steel by pursuing reform of tariffs at EU level. This is what the industry needs. It is what workers and their families need. It is what communities need, and it is what the wider economy needs. Until the Government take these steps, and until the Business Secretary begins to engage with a long-term industrial strategy to defend and promote UK businesses and workers, belated supportive words will be seen as nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Anna Soubry: I begin by paying tribute to all those who work in our steel industry. As the Prime Minister describes it, it is indeed a vital British industry. Those workers are without doubt hard working, skilled and dedicated. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Community trade union leader, Roy Rickhuss. It is pleasure to do business with him; we do not always agree, but he undoubtedly leads a fine band of men and women. Of course, we also have to remember and recognise all those who have so unfortunately been made redundant in recent times. Our thoughts are indeed with them, their loves ones and their families.
	I pay tribute to all hon. Members of all parties who have spoken in the debate. Let me explain the simple truth, which is a harsh fact and reality, as the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) knows. I was slightly disappointed in her speech, although it has sometimes been a great pleasure to work with her. She well knows that SSI was losing £600 million in just three years, and we all know the huge scale of Tata’s losses. Those are the harsh realities, and no Government can alter the price of steel. In some sectors of steel, prices have halved over a year, while consumption across the world has yet to reach the levels of 2008.
	This is not a Government who have stepped back and not done anything. On the contrary, we have seized this nettle and got on with it. We had a steel summit, and the industry made five specific asks of us—and we have delivered on four of those asks. The fifth, which is rates—[Interruption.] As I was saying, on rates, we hope to be able to deliver in the way that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would like—but we have delivered. It is strange because every time we deliver as we are asked, what do the Opposition do? They just shift the goalposts.
	Let us go through the asks and start by looking at procurement. We have changed the rules of procurement, and I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Redcar saying that these were only minor and technical changes. Far from it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) said, these are good and valuable changes; they include skills for the supply chain, which are just some of the new factors. Yes, we will evaluate them and make sure that Departments deliver because these are not guidelines—they are mandatory.
	The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) says that the Government should do more, but she has not told us whether the SNP in Scotland have changed their procurement rules. We know that they have not. On energy costs, we were asked to take action and we have taken action. We have got compensation and gone further than the ask made of us, and in relation to two of those significant charges, we are going to make sure that these are properly and fully compensated and effectively removed from next year.
	Flexibility on the EU emissions directive is another ask on which we have delivered, and then we come to the issue of the dumping of steel by China. It is not just China, if I may say so; it is a number of countries, and that needs to go on the record. I take particular exception to some of the comments made by Labour Members, because in July we voted for the first time for tariffs on wire rod—of some 24% by way of charge. Then we voted again in November.
	It is the lesser duty rule that has been so effective. Let me provide an example of the work we have done. On rebar, if we did not have the lesser duty rule, the charge would have been some 66%. In fact, what the industry wanted was a charge of about 20% to 30%. We have worked tirelessly to achieve that. The EU has set the figure at 9% to 13%, and it is this Secretary of State who took that argument and led the charge. We continue to do that with tubes and on cold rolled steel as well. That is the work that this Government have been doing, and I am proud of our record, and we will continue to fight when it comes to tariffs on Chinese and other countries’ steel.
	Let me make something clear about the lesser duty rule. What it does is effectively ensure that the right balance is struck so that it is not overly protective, but tariffs are there at the right level to do the right thing by British steel. All that I will say about China and market economy status is that Russia has market economy status, and that has not prevented the European Union from imposing tariffs on it—and rightly so. I suggest that that is another very large red herring tossed in by the Opposition because we have delivered on asks that the industry and the unions have made of us.
	What have we done? What has the Secretary of State gone and done? He went to Europe and called an extraordinary meeting of the Competitiveness Council. Far from sitting back in the European Union, we are now taking the lead, and that is why the Competitiveness Council met today. Unfortunately, I have not enough time to go through all the things that have already been achieved because of the action that we have taken in the European Union in order to deliver. For the first time, we are hearing language in the EU that heartens Conservative Members, although I think that Opposition Members simply do not understand it. The statement that was issued today mentions an absolute desire to ensure that competitiveness is at the heart of the future of the steel industry: a desire to reduce regulatory costs, to reduce regulation, and to look at the issues of illegal subsidies and, most important, electricity prices.
	Anyone who wants to help out the British steel industry will support Trident, but where was the Leader of the Opposition on Saturday? On a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament march.

Rosie Winterton: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question accordingly put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 239, Noes 288.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Barclay.)

Chris Stephens: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my position as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union Parliamentary Group. I have secured this debate tonight to bring to the attention of the House the pension fund of employees of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
	Let me thank the three trade unions that have a membership interest—PCS, Unite the Union and Prospect—for raising these concerns with me and other right hon. and hon. Members, as well as the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) who serves on the Commission, and the Leader of the House for their helpful information. I must say at this point that I was disappointed with the communication that I received from the War Graves Commission director-general, to which I will return.
	The Commonwealth War Graves Commission cares for more than 1,700,000 casualties of the first and second world wars in cemeteries and memorials at more than 23,000 locations in over 150 countries. Indeed, I have two war grave locations in my own constituency. The commission employs more than 1,300 staff worldwide; approximately 250 of whom are on UK-based contracts. Negotiations are also currently ongoing with Ministry of Defence to include non-war related graves in the work of the commission.
	Staff of the commission take pride in attending to the war graves. It is not just a job, but a way of life and a vocation. Many are from families who have worked for the commission for generations, and many spend their whole working lives in the service of the commission. Jobs at the commission range from gardeners, maintenance and stonemasons to administrators, supervisors, managers, archivists and historians. It is not uncommon for staff to progress through a variety of those roles in the course of their career, re-training and adapting to the needs of the job. There is often a large element of foreign travel and the work can entail working and living abroad for years and even decades; requiring staff to uproot families and learn new languages to adjust. That can have a financial impact too, as spouses have often been unable to have careers. It is disappointing therefore to receive correspondence from the director-general which said that it is hard to argue that our gardeners should enjoy better terms of employment than nurses or members of the armed forces.
	Salaries at the commission have also been very modest. A recent Towers Watson global grading and pay review found a need to up-rate salaries, leading to most getting an increase of between 1% and 1.5%, or a 1.5% lump sum. Those on the lowest grade were given a minimum £450 increase. Although that is welcome, it nevertheless reflects the fact that salaries over the years have not been commensurate with the job. However, despite some of the sacrifices, staff at the commission remain committed to delivering a high level of service. Most recently, the commemorations of the first world war have required staff to work over and above their normal commitments.

Chris Stephens: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree with him.
	To recognise the special nature of the job, the loyalty of staff and the financial sacrifices staff have made over the years, the commission has held a final salary pension scheme, ensuring financial security for staff who have spent their lives in dedicated service to the commission. The terms of this scheme are good with a low employee contribution, a spouse’s pension, death in service and lump sums based on final salary—40/60ths. That reflects the fact that the pension has traditionally been one of the most important conditions of service, recognising years of dedication and loyalty.
	In December 2014, however, the CWGC announced the intention to close the final salary pension scheme in April 2016 and move staff to a far less favourable defined contribution scheme, the Group Pension Plan. The terms of this scheme are much higher employee contribution, lower employer contribution and less of a pension pot at the end. The changes will see a drastic reduction in the pensions of 180 long-serving staff, with some losing more than £6,000 for every year that they draw their pension. The introduction of the new pension will also see a reduction in employer contributions from the current 22.4% of salary to a limit of “up to 15%”. On average, employer contributions will likely be much lower as the 15% rate can be reached only when employees significantly increase their contributions in turn. That came just two years after the Commonwealth War Graves Commission had closed the final salary scheme to new entrants, promising:
	“Closure of the scheme to new members does not have a negative impact on the funding of the existing pension scheme…The current pension scheme remains in a relatively strong surplus position when assets and liabilities are calculated on a long term actuarial basis.”

Chris Stephens: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I shall come on to say more about the position of the scheme.
	The news of the closure of the final salary scheme has come as a terrible shock to long-serving staff, with more than 50% of those affected within 10 years of normal retirement age, leaving little time to readjust. For some, that has meant completely changing retirement plans as they can no longer afford to retire or as key assumptions such as being able to pay off a mortgage are no longer the case. Staff feel betrayed that what was promised to them for years is suddenly being snatched away.
	Let us consider the financial position. In the commission’s statement of accounts of March 2014, the key numbers show a surplus of £1.4 million on income of £67 million, with balance sheet reserves up from £4.3 million to £7.2 million and net current assets up from £1.5 million to £2.2 million. The balance sheet shows an improvement in reserves of £2.9 million, due largely to the improvement of £2.6 million in the pension deficit from £8.3 million to £5.7 million. In its 2015 accounts, the position had changed. The balance sheet showed a deficit of £6.1 million, having been in surplus by £6.7 million in March 2014. The reason was a sharp increase in the deficit shown in the pension scheme, a deterioration of £13 million in the year, taking the deficit to £18.6 million. The background is the effect of the recent three yearly valuation, which reflected a collapse in the forecast interest rates for the pension fund investments.
	My first question to the Minister is: what investments resulted in this change from 2014 to 2015? Despite the commission announcing its intention to close the pension scheme in December 2014, formal consultation with the three trade unions representing staff at the commission—PCS, Prospect and Unite—did not start until June 2015. During the consultation period, the trade unions took a reasoned and helpful approach, proposing numerous alternatives in an attempt to find a solution that both recognised the financial position of the commission and mitigated the most detrimental effects on staff. However, the commission rejected all the proposals, remaining resolute on closing the final salary scheme and moving to a defined contribution scheme.
	Proposals were numerous and wide reaching and included increasing member contributions to enable the scheme to stay open. The initial proposal put forward by the trade union side, a proposal that directly addressed the commission’s concerns about the pension scheme deficit and about future risk in the scheme, was as follows. First, it proposed a cap on pensionable earnings for future service with effect from 1 April 2016, which would immediately address the pension scheme deficit by enabling a downward revision of the actuarial costs of the scheme. Secondly, it proposed to increase member contributions from 1.5% to 5%, phased in over the next two years. Thirdly, it suggested that the decision on the closure of the scheme should be postponed for three years, linked to a further valuation of the scheme during 2018. That would enable a considered and measured review of the scheme’s funding, taking account of the previous two proposed measures, both of which would have a positive impact on past service deficit and future service costs. These proposals were rejected almost immediately, with no costing done by the commission, leading the trade unions to believe that the consultation was hollow and the commission was intent on closing the final salary scheme regardless.
	The final proposal from the trade unions was the option of CWGC UK-based staff transferring to the civil service Alpha pension scheme, as provided for under the Cabinet Office’s New Fair Deal. We are aware that many scheduled bodies including English Heritage, the Churches Conservation Trust, the Royal Botanic Gardens, the Imperial War Museum and the British Council have been permitted to join the new civil service pension scheme.

Chris Stephens: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He has spoken to me about that privately and I have asked questions about it. His comments are surprising because of the aggregate accrual rates in the Alpha scheme. One of the problems is that there has been no discussion of the actuarial variations between the trade unions and those representing the commission in the talks. I hope the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices to put that right.
	The commission’s response was to assert that CWGC staff are not civil servants, making them ineligible to join the Alpha scheme. However, the Office for National Statistics details the CWGC as part of the MOD accounts, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs also lists CWGC staff as civil servants. In fact, the CWGC tends to pick and choose when the civil service hat fits. For example, the 1% pay cap in the public sector is often cited in pay talks as a reason to keep down pay rises.
	The trade unions believe that they were never given a satisfactory reason why the CWGC did not apply for admittance as a scheduled body under the Government’s New Fair Deal policy. Instead of putting forward a case for staff to join Alpha, the commission seemed to decide in advance that they were ineligible to join and then sought confirmation of this from the MOD. The commission’s unwillingness to engage and seek alternatives that would mitigate the financial impact on staff was demonstrated throughout the consultation.
	Trade unions repeatedly asked for more information to inform the consultation and aid the consideration of alternatives. However, the commission declined to offer that information, and the trade unions had to conduct much of the consultation without key information. For example, they requested an anonymised breakdown of how the new scheme would financially affect each member of staff, crucial information that would allow unions to see the impact of the proposals and help them put forward alternatives. That request was declined, leaving the unions no option but to ask members to send in their individual statements and to piece them together to form an overall picture.
	Staff representatives were denied access to key decision making meetings at which they had requested the opportunity to put forward the case to keep the scheme open. The unions wrote to the commission asking to attend the meeting on 9 December 2015 when the commission put forward its case for closing the scheme to the board of commissioners. The commission wrote back to say that the unions’ attendance would be “inappropriate”.
	Despite the trade unions raising numerous concerns and offering reasonable alternatives, the decision to close the final salary scheme appears to have been a fait accompli. The commission made the final decision in December 2015 to go ahead and close the scheme in April 2016. As staff have mentioned, the pension scheme has always been a way of attracting and retaining staff in the commission, and it has featured strongly as part of the overall benefits package that staff have signed up to when joining. To take it away after years of service, when staff are so painfully near retirement, is just unfair. Long-serving staff have put up with great disturbance and sacrifice to their family lives, such as moving to foreign countries. Spouses and partners have often been unable to have careers as a result, and the pension that commission staff accrue should recognise that
	Approximately 60% of those affected by the changes are 50 years old or more, so they could be retiring within the next 10 years. Staff within a few years of retirement now have little time to re-adjust their financial planning for retirement, as the alternative Group Pension Plan will not deliver anything like the benefits of the final salary scheme. When changes were made to the civil service pension schemes, protection was given to staff nearing retirement, in recognition of the fact that they would have made financial plans based on the assumption of their existing pension entitlement. That protection has not been offered to staff at the commission.
	Closure of the scheme from 1 April 2016 will have a significant detrimental effect on the future pensions of UK-based staff and will cause considerable unrest among employees at a time when they are working hard to further enhance the reputation of the commission with the work on the 1914 to 1918 centenary commemorations. The changes also come at the exact time when workers currently contracted out of the state second pension, as staff in the commission are, will see national insurance contribution increases of 1.4%. From April 2016, staff transferring to the GPP scheme will therefore have the dual disadvantage of paying national insurance increases and pension contribution increases of up to 5% for the new scheme. Closing the final salary pension scheme will create financial difficulty for the commission’s longest-serving, loyal staff, who have sacrificed much for the commission over the years.
	The trade unions believe that they have adopted a constructive approach to finding alternatives. However, the commission has refused to make any meaningful changes to its initial position to mitigate the financial impact on staff.

Kevan Jones: I do not want to get into a dialogue about this, but I have to say that that is not true. The final scheme was changed, including to help lower-paid staff over the next three years, so changes have been made. I also have to say that I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description of the negotiations, because the trade unions did meet the vice-chair and the secretary-general.

Chris Stephens: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am sure that is a discussion he and I can continue to have.
	I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, has the decision to close the scheme already been made or is it the case that, in the words of the Leader of the House in a letter to me on 24 February 2016:
	“The Commission has undertaken a consultation and is now considering in detail the range of responses received but no decision has yet been taken”?
	Secondly, what is the current deficit of the scheme, as of today’s date? Lastly, given what I have outlined in relation to industrial and employee relations, does he not agree that we should ensure that talks begin between the commission and the trade unions—hopefully with ministerial involvement—to share information and actuarial evidence properly and to reach a solution that could be agreed by both sides?

Mark Lancaster: Indeed. That is what I was trying very gently to say. None the less, I am keen to help. In fact, the two parliamentary commissioners, sitting on either side of the House, are in many respects much closer to the issue than I am.
	The pension arrangements of the commission’s employees are ultimately a matter for the commission’s senior management and for trustees of the scheme. The concerns of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West should, in the first instance, rightly be directed to the commission, which, it must be emphasised, is not even a UK-run organisation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) said. None the less, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, not least so that I can pay tribute to the commission for its work before I get on to the issue of pensions.
	I am sure that, like me, many hon. Members will have visited one or more of the cemeteries and memorials that are so well cared for by the commission. It is certainly true to say that the commission provides the gold standard in care and that the sites under its care, wherever they may be, are always as well and as lovingly cared for as possible.

Mark Lancaster: I am not going to give way, because I am going to run out of time. The hon. Lady will have to forgive me.
	I have been privileged to visit several sites in recent years, including in northern France and on Ascension Island. I have also visited Stanley cemetery in the Falklands, with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and Stanley cemetery in Hong Kong, which is without doubt one of the most striking cemeteries in the world, with its views over Stanley harbour. I often sat there to reflect during my service in Hong Kong.
	It would be beneficial to remind ourselves of the origins of the commission. As hon. Members might be aware, it was established by royal charter on 21 May 1917. The provisions were then extended by a supplemental charter on 8 June 1964. In accordance with its royal charter, the commission has the task of commemorating the Commonwealth war dead of the two world wars by making fit provision in perpetuity for their graves and memorials, and of maintaining records of the dead.
	The commission ensures that 1.7 million people who died in the two world wars will never be forgotten, and it cares for cemeteries and memorials at 23,000 locations in 154 countries. It is worth pointing out that, within the United Kingdom, it helps us to commemorate more than 300,000 Commonwealth servicemen and women, with their graves numbering 170,000 in more than 13,000 locations across the country.
	I would like to take this opportunity to point hon. Members to the commission’s website, which, among other things, details the locations of the more than 140,000 graves that it tends in the UK. People tend to think of the commission in terms of precise ranks of graves in cemeteries on the western front, but there is hardly a town anywhere in the country, let alone a constituency, that does not contain at least one grave tended by the commission.
	In this year, when we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, it is particularly poignant to remember that those graves and memorials allow us to connect with not just the conflicts of the past, but the people caught up in those conflicts. That reminds us of the cost of such conflicts and of the individuals who paid the ultimate price, and it gives us a very human connection with history.
	As I mentioned at the start of my speech, the commission is not a UK-run organisation. Its cost is shared by the member Governments, consisting of Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom, in proportions based on the number of their graves. That results in the UK contributing almost 80% of the total funding, which was in excess of £47 million in 2015. In addition, the Ministry of Defence provides £1.3 million to the commission for the cost of maintaining 20,000 Boer war graves in South Africa and a further 21,000 non-world war graves around the world.
	The commission’s day-to-day operations are overseen by the vice-chairman, Air Chief Marshal Sir Joe French; the high commissioners of member Governments; and eight commissioners drawn from the armed forces, the two largest UK political parties—currently those two commissioners are the hon. Member for North Durham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland—and individuals who bring particular knowledge and experience.
	Turning to the issue at hand—the pension fund of employees of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission —I need to be clear that, as an independent Commonwealth body established by royal charter, the commission has no requirement on it to consult Her Majesty’s Government on day-to-day operational matters, including the terms and conditions of its UK workforce. However, as a key stakeholder in the commission, the MOD was consulted on the issue and agreed with the decision to consult about the closure of the scheme.
	Formal consultation on commission pensions commenced on 8 June 2015. The commission met the trade unions representing UK employees on five occasions and wrote on a further three occasions, providing detailed responses to alternative proposals that were put forward. I can confirm that all the trade union proposals were costed by the commission’s actuarial advisers, so they were certainly not dismissed out of hand.
	The consultation period was extended by two weeks at the request of the trade unions to accommodate annual leave commitments. It closed on 14 September 2015 without agreement being reached. Subsequent to the consultation period, further meetings with the trade unions took place on 23 November and 4 December 2015. Following the consultation, the commission has agreed to the closure of the superannuation scheme with effect from 31 March 2016, and has agreed that members will be automatically enrolled into the commission’s alternative group personal pension scheme with a period of enhanced contributions.

Mark Lancaster: I am happy to clarify that. The members of the scheme will have been notified of the closure, as have the trades unions and trustees. Crucially, I understand that the decision was taken against the background of a 60% increase in the cost of the scheme since 2005, a growing scheme deficit, and a further increase in funding stemming from the 2014 statutory valuation of the scheme. The commission has made it clear that it is unable to meet the additional costs of approximately £1 million a year without a detrimental impact on its core task of commemoration. It is clear that the only way to make such savings would be to place many jobs at risk, as the vast majority of its budget is spent on horticultural labour. As the commission is an organisation funded by six Commonwealth nations, its UK employees represent less than a quarter of its workforce of 1,250. The closure of the superannuation scheme has an impact on approximately 180 of those employees, whose terms and conditions of employment are ultimately a matter for the commission, not the Government.
	The Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s funding has been maintained over many years, and this Government have recognised in the House its important and sacred mission. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in commending the commission for its outstanding and vital work. However, I must reiterate that the issue of pensions for the commission’s employees is one for the commission and its trustees rather than the Government. I understand the concerns that have been raised in this debate, and a couple of outstanding questions need to be answered. I am happy to engage with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission on behalf of the hon. Gentleman, and I will write to him in due course.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.